Skip to main content

tv   Campaign 2018 Missouri U.S. Senate Debate  CSPAN  October 26, 2018 8:03pm-9:06pm EDT

8:03 pm
christie speaking at a political in los angeles. of themakers -- phillips super pac me, for prosperity machines, with cybersecurity analyst. missouri senate debate between democratic senator and republican josh hawley. >> now, from nine news, the final missouri debate for the senate between incumbent mccaskill and missouri attorney josh hawley. >> good evening, welcome and thank you for joining us for kmbc 9 years 2018 coverage of this debate. the missouri u.s. senate seat. joined by you're political reporter michael mahoney and oining us tonight the two leading candidates in this race. emocratic senator claire mccaskill and josh hawley.
8:04 pm
agreed on the rules. in the first half, each candidate gets 90 seconds to 60 second h a rebuttal. follow-ups are at the discretion of the moderators. the first gets question based on a drawing one week ago. candidates, at times this campaign for u.s. senate has reflected the tribal nature of especially in the last couple of days. you have called each other names, you have insulted each neither one of you started this tribal politics an everybody knows that but your campaigns joined in on it. the question to both of you, is this what voters deserve. don't voters do and expect better, mr. hawley? hawley: thanks for hosting his, thank you, senator mccaskill for agreeing to it. first let me say i'm delighted to have my wife erin with me today. sitting right over there. we have two little boys at home, elijah who is 5, and blaze who
8:05 pm
is 3 and they are the light of our lives. we love you, boys, if you're watching this. i'm very concerned, mike in question, about the culture of incivility and confrontation and even outright that we're seeing across the country. i think it is extremely politics to see our come to this level. i have never attacked my personally. i'm not going to. this is not about the two of us. this is about the people of the missouri. but i have to say, when you hear leaders of the democratic party clinton, saying that you can't be civil with people that you disagree with, holder, have eric another democrat leader, saying the new democratic party kicks disagree with, when you see these mobs popping up in the wake of the kavanaugh the ngs, the screaming, shouting, driving people out of restaurants and confronting them, this is terrible. united states of america. this is not civil discourse. i'm disappointed that the seems to have y embraced this. i condemn that no matter who
8:06 pm
does it. senator ld hope mccaskill would do the same. >> it's really interesting to listen to his answer because if noticed he blamed it all on the democrats. that's the problem. on both sides.em we've got to turn down the temperature. ugly on people being both sides. and i really have to disagree with you. e's spent his entire campaign trying to trash me personally. ad after ad that i'm somehow elf-dealing when all my republican closing know i would never vote to enhance my family's wealth. i would never do that. this has been a terribly personal campaign. i have tried to keep it on the very proud of my bipartisan record. i don't sit in washington and blame the other guys. in the middle and work with my colleagues of both parties. of i understand that some this is leadership from the top. ronald reagan, i may have isagreed with him on a few things but he worked hard to unite this country.
8:07 pm
you never would have heard him some of the rhetoric that our president uses now and josh awley said he disagrees with nothing the president has done. i don't know anybody that i with something on. so this isn't a time to blame one party or the other. to turn down the temperature, keep somebody in the senate that knows how to work across the aisle that has a strong bipartisan record and would never engage in the kind f personal destruction that's gone on in this campaign. >> a follow up? >> thank you. senator with all due respect, you're no ronald reagan, and, listen, it's time that we had who is going to calling it like it is. yesterday rump condemned this political violence. peninsula has condemned this political convenience. when nancy pelosi was chased out an event they condemned the violence. look at what happened with brett one augh, yes, it was on side, it was senate democrats launched a personal smear
8:08 pm
campaign against senator kevin kevin. destroyed dr. , ford in the process. it was the senate democrats who this and it was hillary clinton and eric holder ho have encouraged, frankly, confrontation, if not violence. i think this has to stop. out anybody o call who does it, i think we've got to take responsibility where due.onsibility is >> mr. mccaskill, 60 seconds. out still didn't call anybody on the republican side. ridiculous. it's incredible incendiary rhetoric used at his rally. we know that i'm not blaming it ll on him but how can you get through this question without acknowledging it. i did not participate in the haos around the kavanaugh confirmation. i made my decision on kavanaugh before the allegation surfaced can have all about cav's alliance and allegiance to
8:09 pm
dark money and unlimited contributions. which i understand, josh hawley agrees with him on. wantnk the american people our politics disclosed. they want to see who is buying ads.f these nasty >> our next question, and on a morning when we found out that pentagon is considering sending 800 american troops to the southern border, as this of 7,000 people makes its way north through mexico and heading to the do either, this is a two party question. do either of you support shutting down the southern that far, hey get and, some of these people may status oncem asylum they reach our border and assuming they meet legal asylum should r it be granted, this question first to senator mccaskill. absolutely we should. e should use any tool at his disposal to make sure our border is never overrun. border patrol agents have endorsed me.
8:10 pm
i have voted for more than $70 in board security money including more money for the wall. that it is elieve essential that we secure the border with technology, with ore barriers with more personnel, way back in 2010 i more border for security personnel and technology and reconnaissance drones so yes, first secure the second, we've got to modern nice and use technology claims heard lum more promptly. it takes forever. they are still using paper files, we have less than 400 junction doing the work. we need to move the embassy into mexico so we can decide those at islelium cases before the our border.n get to asylum cases should be heard and legitimate ave asylum claims should take advantage of our laws in that regard. needs to go else back to their country as quickly as possible. >> mr. hawley? >> absolutely. think the president needs to take whatever steps are
8:11 pm
necessary, if that means closing it. board he should do this is a potential national security crisis that's brewing hour.e and this president has stood strong on border security. he needs to continue to do so. surprised to hear senator mccaskill talk about the board. she's said that the wall is embarrassing. that's her word. it's embarrassing. ridiculed president trump for wanting a board wall. she has repeatedly voted against funding.curity she has voted for amnesty for llegal aliens, and she is currently sponsoring the most radical open borders bill ever united states he congress. those are the facts. weakness.record of that's a record that invites chaos on the southern board. record.liberal democrat it's not what this state wants or needs. mccaskill. >> the patrol agents took a look at both candidates. took a look at my record and unlike josh hawley they did
8:12 pm
ot cherry pick certain votes and mislead missourians about what they meant. they looked at my entire record they cided i was the one wanted to support. i was the one that had their back. voted for in border security. i'm one of four democrats that off funding to sanctuary cities. e has misrepresented my record in this regard time after time after time. clear.cord is very i have never voted for amnesty, people liesing people who have letting e law, yes, dreamers find legal status, absolutely. kids came here through no fault of their own, they are serving in our military, we need to welcome them into our but some of the things he characterizes my record as, it's just flat not true. >> a quick follow up for a second. mr. hawley, what's your cite for claim, your claim that she has voted for amnesty?
8:13 pm
so-called orted a comprehensive immigration bill that included an amnesty provision. e said she voted against sanctuary cities but she's also voted for funding for sanctuary cities. he's called the wall embarrassing. she's mocked the president for wanting a wall. -- she's sponsoring diane feinstein's legislation, a alifornia liberal that would cad fire catch and release. it's an open borders bill. people of the e state don't want. those aren't characterizations those are facts. a liberal democrat when it comes to immigration. it's a liberal democrat when comes to the board, and that's fine, there is no shame with that it's nothing wrong with the it just isn't where people of the state are and it isn't what our country needs. a bill e talking about us that passed by a wide ipartisan margin in 2013 that included $25 billion for the wall. amnesty.asn't there were all kinds of
8:14 pm
peoplees in the bill for who violated the law. of thethem go to the end line. jump through hoops. here's the thing, he says i mock the president. he's talking about a hearing where the president's current chief-of-staff and former head homeland security said under no circumstances are we going to shiningwall from sea to sea. he's the one who said it was absolutely not going to happen. barriers, yes. a wall in places, that makes no ense, i'm not going to waste taxpayer money on that. >> next question, michael. >> a question about healthcare, this.e both of you say that you would consider some alternatives to for ffordable care act obama care. one of them that you both seem interested in is einsurance, a pool of government money to ensure insurance companies to pay for their most expensive and sickest patients. this would probably under the nelson bill which is in the
8:15 pm
enate now cost between $10 and $15 billion a year. and could you vote for something you support would it at that level? mr. hawley? support federal reinsurance. i have proposed federal reinsurance as one way to deal of preexisting conditions. as many of you know my wife and i have a young boy, our we learned this year has a hip, bone and joint condition that's a preexisting condition. something that's personal to us and i have long said we do not need obama care to cover preexisting conditions. and i have said the federal reinsurance is one way to do it. mccaskill has signed on to a federal reinsurance bill rele er attacking me elentlerelent leslie, calling me a liar, attacking my son she's signed on which is a federal reinsurance bill which is exactly what i have proposed. shows you this whole
8:16 pm
campaign has been a big scare tactic. it's about scaring voters. say we can get down costs. i say we can cover people with preexisting conditions and we care.o it without obama that's not the liberal democrat missouri needs. >> senator mccaskill? >> first, i have not attacked that on, i would never do i told you in the last debate, this is what you're doing, it's retweeted a ing, i blog that somebody wrote that mentioned the ad where josh administrationmentioned his soe he was using his son as a prop. your son.tacking here's the thing. the reinsurance bill talked about, yeah, i'm for it. wish he would call his buddy and let us vote on it. promised us a vote. he thought he could change the subject, after they did repeal replace was so bad the republicans wouldn't even vote for it. mcconnellat happened, wanted to change the subject and
8:17 pm
he thought everybody would forget about healthcare. i did 50 town halls. you know what people talked about in those town halls. healthcare. to hold what they want on to? all the consumer protections that he's trying to get rid of n court and if you don't think he's trying to get rid of them, then why did his lawyers ask the the decision on the case until after november? hawley. >> you know, senator mccaskill has said something very interesting. she has a federal reinsurance proposal that she signed on to. you don't have to have obama to protect people with preexisting conditions and et she's been attacking me relentlessly, personally, calling me a liar, repeatedly, for saying that we need to get of obama care but we can protect people with preexisting and, in s without it fact, there is legislation to do so. she says people want to hold on to it. they don't want to hold on to obama care. 145% because up to of obama kampt last week,
8:18 pm
senator mccaskill said it wasn't very many people. 300,000 people who are paying those massive price increases who are paying the areeases in drug costs, who dealing with the narrower doctor networks because of obama care. 51st vote for obama care and now she won't cross the reform it, lace it, get something better. i will. we need something other than the iberal democrat line and i'll excite for it. -- senator mccaskill, you the next -- >> he came out in favor of a reinsurance bill right away read it until he figured out that it wasn't going to cover him because it said, eah, you get an insurance policy but it doesn't have to cover your preexisting onditions, i'm for a lot of bipartisan solutions on healthcare. i have worked on them. them.eady to vote on itch mcconnell has not let us vote on it. with your tax dollars, and wipe
8:19 pm
preexisting conditions, your kids stay on your policy until 26. he made a conscious decision to do that, knowing there was no back-up, there is no that's why he doesn't want this case decided before november. follow-up here for a second. mr. hawley, i would like you to this stance. that you favor protecting reexisting conditions and yet you're a participant in this texas lawsuit that if it's successful, would eliminate them. does that square, sir. >> the texas lawsuit is about obama care and i think we need and replace obama care. there?t preexisting is in >> we can cover people with preexisting conditions without a ma care and we can do it variety of ways. just like the bill senator mccaskill is a part of. collins king about nelson, senator. it's a federal reinsurance bill, care in need obama order to do that.
8:20 pm
you cited, mike, some of the details of it. be willing to vote for something like that. i would and we don't have to have the individual machine date. have to have the 159 new agencies under obama care. have the 20 e to new federal taxes for it. that's the kind of common sense the people of this state need. lawsuit y, sir, in the it would eliminate preexisting conditions and yet you support them. square that away for me. obama care, mike, has one particular way of protecting people with preexisting linked to the individual mandate. it's given us the system we have now, i think that people with conditions like my son should not be held hostage to the higher costs, should not to the narrowing doctor networks. when we found out my boy had a preexisting condition we went thing that a lot of people here have and people all around the state we had to coverage can we get for the doctor we need. well that doctor wasn't in the network k. we get a waiver, no, we afford out-of-pocket?
8:21 pm
these narrowing networks, higher costs, are because of obama care. mccaskill o give ms. seconds to respond. >> the collins bill has nothing preexisting conditions. the preexisting conditions part is in the law now. wants to remove it. there was a pleading in court called severability. if he believes it is constitutional and can stand on its own, all he had to do is file the pleading to sever out pre-existing conditions, so people can be protected if the lawsuit is successful. he knows there is no safety net. they want this case decided after november because he knows the impact it would have on the selection, when everyone was
8:22 pm
thrown into chaos, when there's nothing there to replace it, because the republicans who promised to replace could not even get republicans to vote for their replacement because it was so damaging. >> we want to move on to tax cuts. >> as you all know, the president is calling for a second round of tax cuts, and at a time when the cbo says the federal deficit has jumped 20% of the first 10 months of the fiscal year, argue in favor of more cuts now, and it is a two-part question, so bear with me, raising taxes at a time when the congressional budget office says that next year this country needs to raise revenue and cut programs to keep debt manageable. first, ms. mccaskill. senator mccaskill: it is so weird that the president throws out there we will give you a 10% tax cut before the election. congress isn't even in session. it is just bizarre. should the tax cuts for middle class families be permanent? yes. republicans had it backwards -- they make you rich people's tax cuts permanent and middle-class tax cuts temporary.
8:23 pm
i would like to flip those. i would like them to do maybe a little bit of a haircut on some of the cuts that went to the very wealthy in this country. i know that tax cuts have not produced what they promised. it has not paid for itself. our deficit is up and our revenues are down in a strong economic climate. it has not produced wage growth. that $4000 everybody was promised has not happened. in fact, wage growth in the third quarter of this year compared to the third quarter of last year, before the tax cut, is actually down 1.8%. the people i talk to every day around missouri, they are not feeling it. that is why they quit advertising talking about the tax cut. it has blown up the deficit, helped the wealthy, and left most missourians high and dry. mr. hawley: i am absolutely in favor of considering additional tax cuts for the middle class. and i supported the tax cuts for the middle class. my opponent did not. my view is that for too long the middle class has been asked to
8:24 pm
bear the brunt of paying for the outrageous spending in washington, things like obamacare. and now as they see health care costs go up, they are asked to pay for that. the federal deficit goes up because of the out-of-control spending. i think the middle class deserves a tax cut. senator mccaskill says she wants to make the tax cuts permanent, but she voted against them. let's be honest, she voted against the middle-class tax cuts. she has voted to raise taxes 200 times in her 12-year career in the united states senate. she had a chance to vote for middle-class tax cuts and she voted no. and now when wage growth is finally beginning to grow, a 10-year high, we have unemployment down to 3.3% in in this state, rural unemployment, which is important to me as a guy from a small town, lowest in decades. she wants to take away that. we need somebody who is not going to follow the liberal democrat line, who is going to fight for the middle class and
8:25 pm
do what is best for the state. >> i want to go back to the back half of my question and go back to ms. mccaskill about the possibility of cutting programs to keep the debt manageable. are there programs that you think are vulnerable that you think should be cut? senator mccaskill: i voted against a lot of omnibus bills because there was nasty stuff in there and pet projects. i swam upstream many times when i have opposed my party. i posted a very lonely crusade against earmarks, which i won thanks to the tea party helping in 2010 when those representatives came to guess and we were able to get rid of your marks. i understand that we have got to
8:26 pm
be careful about spending. i have voted to cut programs. i would never raise taxes on middle-class families. we have not even look at carried interest, which is a big, huge loophole for hedge fund managers. what did the republicans do? they left that in, the loophole for hedge fund managers. and he wants to make you believe it is about the middle class? it was not. mr. hawley: senator, you call the middle-class tax cuts scraps. missouri families are saving $1200 or more a year. i grew up in a place called lexington, missouri, population 5,000, not a fancy place. for folks there, that is not scraps. it may be scraps to you, but not for missourians. we need to protect the lower rates for the middle class and we need to do more. you asked about the deficit and raising revenues. i would start with obamacare. obamacare will cost us $2 trillion over the next 10 years.
8:27 pm
it is costing missouri families higher premiums, higher deductibles, narrower networks every single day. we can do better than that. we can protect people with pre-existing conditions and young people on their parents' insurance. but that is where i would start. >> ms. mccaskill, you have often said that you would work with president trump on things that benefit missourians. the president just signed a bill that i believe you were a cosponsor of that that tells pharmacists there are cheaper options. but it is quite clear that you don't care for the president's style very much. mr. hawley, you have been a beneficiary of president trump
8:28 pm
during this campaign with several visits here. you say that ms. mccaskill is ignoring the trump landslide in the state of missouri from 2016. he is going to expect loyalty. he values loyalty, the president does. he is going to expect your loyalty. is he going to have it, especially given how much he has been in the state for you? mr. hawley: i will tell you who will have my loyalty, the people of missouri. my test is what is good for missouri first, last, always. have i supported the president? you bet i have, because his policies are good for the state. >> including the tariffs? the tariffs are helping missouri? mr. hawley: my view is if we are going to be in a trade war with china, who started this trade war, trying to rip off missouri consumers and businesses and farmers, i am for winning it. i think we need to stand up to the people who are taking our jobs. unlike senator mccaskill, i'm not content to watch jobs go overseas and watch wages stagnate for decades on end, and i think we need to pursue policies that will get those things growing again. listen, senator mccaskill votes with chuck schumer, her party boss, almost 90% of the time. over 2800 times since he has been the leader of her party in the united states senate. we tallied it up.
8:29 pm
that is fine. she is a liberal democrat. but she should own up to that. she has opposed this president on every single priority. justice kavanaugh, she was a no. justice gorsuch, she was a no. tax cuts, no. securing the border, no. that is the record, that is the 50% of the time. i voted for two thirds of his judicial nominees. i voted for more than half of his cabinet members. he has signed into law 38 pieces of my legislation. clearly, we agree on some things. clearly, we can work together on some things. but you do not like his style.
8:30 pm
senator mccaskill: i do not think we should be setting an example that the leader of the most amazing nation of the lie allinks it is ok to the time, i mean, just lie after lie after lie, and it is -- he even admits sometimes. he told "the wall street journal" the other day he has not imposed any tariffs. he needs to talk to the soybean farmers in missouri, who are all in the red. he actually said that a few days ago. i do not get that. i do not get why he feels the need to do that, as the leader of what i think is an exceptional nation, that has always been so proud of our values. he does not need to do that. so yes i have to say, i do not , like that he lies all the time. i think he sets a bad example. we owe you rebuttals. 60 seconds, mr. hawley. mr. hawley: maybe senator mccaskill is trying to make news today.
8:31 pm
if that's the case, i would welcome it. the fact is she has called the , wall embarrassing. she voted against a compromise deal for dreamers that the president proposes before that, because it included border wall funding. she's a leading opponent of the wall. she voted against justice kavanaugh. she voted against justice gorsuch. she voted against tax cuts. she voted against gina haspel, the first female cia director. every priority of this administration she is against. , she is a liberal democrat. there is no shame in that there's nothing personal about. , that is her record, but a record that is not work in missouri. senator mccaskill: the vote on the wall he is referring to, republicans do not even vote for it. i think they got only 28 votes. i voted plenty of time for border security and barriers, and gina haspel, i cannot share all the reasons i voted against gina haspel, but it has to do
8:32 pm
with torture, her involvement at the time she was in the cia. john mccain and i used to fight like cats and dogs sometimes about things we disagree on on the armed services committee, but i admired him so much because he was so adamant about what that meant if we were ever going to be a country that allows torture, because that meant our men and women who were captured were going to suffer terribly. so i really think my record reflects who i am. i look at each one individually. i make each decision individually. and that is what i get so much done with my republican colleagues. year,wasn't an election and you asked my republican colleagues in the senate they , can tell you i have somebody they can work with very >> we will be back as our commitment to coverage 2018 continues. ♪ announcer: is your source for commitment 2018 election coverage. the debate will return in a
8:33 pm
moment. ♪ [applause] welcome back. we begin the second half of this debate, the u.s. senate seat for missouri during the questions come from our audience. they were preselected by km bc. each candidate has a one minute rebuttal, follow-ups at the discretion of the moderator. >> thank you. youuestion would be, how do propose to fix the student debt crisis that our young people face? i want to tweak that a little, and the parent debt? senator mccaskill: it's a crisis in this country that deserves more information. i have introduced legislation, that is really sad when you think about it >> >> >> >> >> --
8:34 pm
stop theis to garnishment of social security for student loan debt. that is how long these debts are hanging on. it is harming a lot of people lives -- a lot of people's lives. i have also been a cosponsor of a bill to allow people to negotiate down their interest rates on student loans, just like you can on your home mortgage. i do not understand why the republicans have blocked that bill. you can refinance or home loan when interest rates go down why , can't you refinance your student loan? it would be much more money in people's pockets, and it would be much better for their lives in terms of the spending power and ability to get going in the world. that has been blocked. and the sad thing is, guess who the interest is going to? the government. the government. that is really insulting that we , have not had enough bipartisan support for that legislation. we also need to do with apprenticeship programs. we got to make sure that, when young people are in high school and they want to code, that we start them on a path to code. we need to do more integration
8:35 pm
like they have done at some of our community colleges, where they work with businesses to begin job training while people are still in school. it brings down the cost of higher education, it does job-training, and it helps our economy. so there is all kinds of ways that we can get at this problem and i support many of them. , mr. hawley: thank you for that question. i think it is a hugely pressing problem. listen, i think one of the things we have to do is that it is time to give these universities skin in the game. they get tremendous amounts of money from the government. they get money from you twice, they get many -- they get money from you as a student or a parent, and they get money from the federal government. they gobble up these student loans. what do they do? they raise tuition and they make you pay even more. that is why tuition costs have gone up faster than even health care costs in this country. we ought to say to universities, look, if you take student loan money from the students, you
8:36 pm
ought to pay back some of those loans if these students get degrees and they cannot get a good job and a good wage. the universities ought to have a skin in the game. also, i think we ought to allow student loan dollars to follow people into apprenticeships and job training programs. why should universities and colleges have a monopoly on this? allows the money to flow to folks who do not want to go to a four-year college, and to get an expensive degree. i don't think you need to have an expensive four-year degree to , get a job or some respect in this country. i know the liberal democrat line is to shovel money to these universities. it's time to put the universities on the hook, and actually put parents and students back in charge. senator mccaskill: by the way, we did that in washington. we made online for-profit schools accountable for how many federal dollars they were taking and how many kids they were actually graduating. and guess who is trying to reverse all those rules right now? none other than betsy devos. she is trying to remove the rules that were actually going to hold for-profit schools accountable that were absolutely , raking in federal dollars and not producing an education for
8:37 pm
these kids, a job opportunity for these kids. she even went so far to try to get rid of the rule that said, if your school was fraudulent, you didn't have to pay back your student loan. and she said, no, no, if it was fraudulent, you still have to pay back your student loan. so that is what has gone on in this administration as it relates to college affordability. you, i agree tell with josh hawley on a lot on this. but when he said that four-year degrees are worthless, i never want to get away from the fact that every kid in this state ought to be able to dream of the opportunity to get a four-your degree, even if nobody else in their house went to college. >> mr. hawley, 60 seconds. mr. hawley: i see senator mccaskill has reached the desperation of her campaign. i never said that degrees were worthless. i said four-year colleges increasingly turn out degrees that can be worthless. and one of the reasons is that students increasingly cannot find good work. they graduate with incredible
8:38 pm
debt, and they cannot find work that actually will help them pay down that debt. i think we need to put all the universities on the hook. all of them. if you take federal tax dollars, if you take that money, you ought to be on the hook for helping pay back student loans, period. >> angelo from kansas city, welcome. >> what will you do to stop gun violence affecting my peers across the nation? will you vote for more school funding to provide more security? and will you, senator mccaskill, vote for an all-out ban? mr. hawley: can you tell me your name again? >> angelo. angelo, nice to meet you. thank you for that question. i can tell you as the father of two young boys, my wife and i, when drop off our little boys at school, we want them to be safe. i think every parent wants that. and sure as heck every student wants that. and the way i would start is it , is time that we prevented firearms from getting into the hands of criminals and also those who are mentally ill and unstable. and there is a common-sense way
8:39 pm
to do that. we have a national background check system that has a loophole. it does not include mental-health records. we should include mental-health records in the background check system. senator mccaskill has voted against that. that is the liberal democrat line. they won't allow the background check system to be fixed that way. i don't know why not. i would start right there. what i am not in favor of is taking away guns from law-abiding citizens. senator mccaskill has an f from the nra. i have an a from the nra, and i because if that, believe in the second amendment, and i believe we can protect folks, particular rights, keep children safe without threatening their constitutional right. >> miss mccaskill. senator mccaskill: i think my record is pretty clear. the nra is always against me. i am for banning bump stocks. i am for universal background checks. i am for mental health records being included in background checks. you know who is opposed to all of those? the nra. do you know why those have not
8:40 pm
been passed? people go to the nra, go to congress and worry more about with the nra thinks than the people at home. the vast majority of people in missouri want universal background checks but because , the nra doesn't want it, it does not happen. and since you brought it up, let me say about the veritas videos, -- about the veritas videos. there was nothing in those videos that were bad from my perspective because people in missouri know where i stand on these issues. they got some kids behind closed doors talking out of school. big deal. i will tell you what is a big deal. they fraudulently embedded themselves in my campaign for weeks -- for weeks -- misrepresenting who they were. they got into our computers, proprietary information, for 20 hours. who knows what they stole? they were not there to help me. they were there to help josh hawley. and the idea that a complaint has been filed with the attorney general's office, and when we called to ask about the complaint, they said call the , campaign. the attorney general's office cannot allow there to be a new normal that fraud can be committed in anybody's campaign. i don't care if it is somebody i
8:41 pm
am for or somebody i am against, that somebody can come in and commit fraud and get in your computers, and the attorney general does nothing. that cannot be the new normal. a.g. hawley: there is the washington two-step right there. senator mccaskill is caught on video, and she blames me. senator mccaskill accuses me of fraud, which is absolutely outrageous and totally not true. and then to ask for the state of missouri, i guess, to appoint a prosecutor with taxpayer money to go after her political opponents, now i know it has become fashionable on campuses for liberal democrats to shut down speakers they don't like, but i have never heard of a state appointing a prosecutor with taxpayer money to go after a political opponent. and to accuse me, again, we are at the desperation phase of senator mccaskill's campaign. >> miss mccaskill. senator mccaskill: i am not
8:42 pm
asking -- by the way, he has appointed special prosecutors all the time. his office there have been three , different articles written in the last two weeks about the mess in his office right now. he is in a hurry. he has never gone into a courtroom and tried a criminal case in his life. so maybe he should be appointing other prosecutors. but the point is that this was a fraud. this isn't about the tape. people in missouri know where i stand. i have done 52 town halls. i have walked in anywhere in missouri and said come in and , ask me any question. i'm afraid of an attorney general that looks the other way when somebody comes in and steals proprietary information out of somebody's computer. a follow-up.ask indulge me for a moment if you could. ms. mccaskill, do you blame mr. hawley's campaign for that video? senator mccaskill: no. i don't blame him for the video. what i do blame him for is, when a complaint is filed with the merchandise act, with a clear case laid out, that instead of
8:43 pm
immediately saying, of course, we will look into it, they refer us to his campaign, as if this was not a serious matter. that is what i am complaining about. >> mr. hawley, did your campaign have anything to do with that video? mr. hawley: absolutely not. and to accuse me of fraud, which is what senator mccaskill did she said i committed fraud, that i participated in a fraud, she said that on television. senator mccaskill: i didn't say that on television. a.g. hawley: again, the video is widely available. i'm sure it is being sent even now. i invite you to look at the record. these kind of desperate attacks are sad to see, especially at the end of a long 36-year career for senator mccaskill. but i hope this is not how she is going to go out. >> brian jones, from kansas city, welcome. >> my question for both of you today is, which of you candidates will put the best interests of the state of missouri ahead of the interests of washington, d.c.? >> miss mccaskill first. senator mccaskill: this is a
8:44 pm
good place for me to talk about our records. i spent years cross-examining criminal defendants, and do you know what that does? that makes me a better senator when i cross-examine witnesses in washington. i spent years combing through the books as the auditor of the state of missouri, figuring out where waste and fraud was. so when i went to washington, i could go into the books and spend years cleaning it up. to use ronald reagan again, i am not going to use his inexperience against him. i wear my years of public service proudly. i learned a lot from them. they make me a stronger senator for missouri, and they also make me somebody who has a big streak of independence. i am not afraid to swim upstream against my party. i publicly opposed harry reid as leader of my party when he was going to be elected leader because i thought it was the , right thing to do. so i have always tried to put missouri first.
8:45 pm
and i hope people go online and look at all the fact checks, all the things from third-party groups, to seal the representations -- see all the misrepresentations and lies that have been told about my record, and secondly, look at all the things i have gotten across the finish line for the people of missouri. mr. hawley: thank you for your question. i appreciate it. if there is one thing that the voters of this state said clearly in 2016, it is that they were tired of party establishments, they were tired of partisan politics. they want people to fight for them and get something done in washington. that is exactly what i will do. it's what i have done is attorney general. senator mccaskill has attacked my record as attorney general. i will stack it up against hers as a united states senator any day of the weekend twice on sundays. i have fought against the big interest, big pharma, the largest lawsuit in missouri history gets big pharma, going after the opioid manufacturers, going after human trafficking, going after big tech. and that is exactly the kind of fight i will bring to the senate. my issue with senator mccaskill is not that she is a bad person. it's nothing personal at all.
8:46 pm
it is just that she is a liberal democrat. she has become a party-line liberal democrat who votes with , chuck schumer almost 90% of the time, who is never with this state when the state needs her, whether it is tax cuts or whether it is defense spending or whether it is securing the border. that is my big issue. and i think we need somebody who is going to go and be a fighter for this state and listens to , the voters of the state and is willing to do what they say. senator mccaskill: he says i'm a good person in these debates and then runs gillion of dollars calling corrupt. may he made two promises when he ran for attorney general. he looked in the camera and said two things first, i won't use , this office to immediately climb the ladder to another office. .oots -- woops turns out the ladder was in the trunk.
8:47 pm
the second promise he made, i'm going to clean up ethics in jefferson city. do you know how many bills were introduced since he has been attorney general? two dozen. you know how many he testified on? you know how many hearings he went to push for those bills? zero. do you know how many ethics proposals he presented and testified and lobbied for, to clean up of the lobbyists getting unlimited gifts in jefferson city? that would be zero. those were the two promises he made. as to the human trafficking, i've got to mention this. he went down to springfield, putting a badge around his neck, i've got to mention this. tvon't recall ever doing around a search warrant, but he did. and they had a big search warrant and he said it was the biggest sex trafficking case in the state. zero felonies in missouri have been filed from that search warrant. zero. mr. hawley: we shut down 13 businesses in southwest missouri. we rescued over 10 young women who had been brought here from china, through california, in an organized east asian crime ring. we have sought permanent injunctions to keep those businesses permanently shut down
8:48 pm
which is all the authority my , office has. i was in court the next money to -- the next morning to see those traffickers brought to justice and see those women freed. and for senator mccaskill to play politics with this is unbelievable. senator mccaskill: you are playing politics with it. in my book -- mr. hawley: i wasn't done. >> go ahead. mr. hawley: i will say again that senator mccaskill has had a distinguished career. it has been 36 years. she has served the state and served this country and it has been a long campaign. i understand that but i hope , this is not the way she wants to end it, with these kinds of attacks, personal attacks, distorting my record, and outright lies. it is just unbecoming. senator mccaskill: there is one thing that is not a lie. in my book as a prosecutor, if someone is sex trafficking, it's a serious felony. and theyile the felony go to jail. no felonies were ever filed in missouri as a result of this massive staying operation he
8:49 pm
did. great that you got violations on their licensing, and that they hadn't filled out the right is this forms. datank it is great some shut down. many are still operating. that's wonderful. but you can't present to the people of missouri that you accomplished putting sex traffickers in jail when nobody was even charged. moderator: we need to move on. barbara. >> thank you, and i'm sorry. allergies. promises of our current administration was to keep u.s. companies in the united states. part of the tax cut that was passed specifically for one veryons left important tax deduction in there, that was moving expenses.
8:50 pm
moving expenses. that included moving your operations out of this country. thoughts on the failure of our administration to fix this loophole? hawley, first. a.g. hawley: the issue you raised about keeping jobs in this state is hugely significant. the town i grew up in, lexington , it's not too far from here. we had a manufacturing operation that made the gun stock for remington rifles, i believe, and that lance closed down. we lost those jobs. and it's been devastating for my little job -- for my little town, population 5000. that story has been repeated across the state and across the country. i think president trump is done a good job by saying, we are going to stand up to trade teachers like china, stand up to
8:51 pm
mexico, stand up to anybody that will take our jobs. if wel be confrontational need to to get those jobs back. the issue you raised is worth looking at, because i think we need to do everything we can to force american companies to keep working are, to bring back those jobs. what i do not agree with is the policy of appeasement and weakness that senator mccaskill and liberal democrats have followed for years. let have been content to wages be stagnant for decades, to see jobs go overseas. that is been the party line. that is not acceptable. we are starting to make progress, we have to push forward. democratscaskill: the have worked hard on requiring the government to buy american products. and a question about to dr. billy of moving expenses, it was an amendment i offered in the finance committee, when of my colleagues offered, i know i had a drafted, i can't for member if he offered it or i offered it,
8:52 pm
to actually make sure that if somebody was moving a company out of the country, they could not the docked the costs of andking down that factory moving those jobs overseas. it was defeated on a partyline vote it was democrats you wanted to get rid of that deduction. republicans want to do to stay in the law. i do not know why. aese tariffs are such double-edged sword for the state. you talk about losing jobs to other companies. at look at midcontinent nail down in poplar bluff. do you know where those jobs are going to go if they can't get relief from the tariffs? to mexico. and that company grew after a mexican family bought it, and ofy increased the number jobs at midcontinent. and now they are going to be forced to pull that plant back to mexico because of the tariffs. all of us want more american jobs breed that's where josh and i agree, we all want american jobs, we just may disagree on who's back we have to scratch to get there. a.g. hawley: senator mccaskill
8:53 pm
mentioned ms. continent nail, i'm glad she did, in southeast missouri. i have not only talked to the folks there, but the mexican parent company, this is a company that bought this missouri-owned company in 2012. the missouri company was very profitable. the mexican company has made a lot of money on this poplar bluff company. fine. totally but now, this mexican company has in the space of a month late off half the workforce and said they would lay off the rest of it. i went and talked to the local folks. we asked the administration for exemptions for that company, but i called the mexican ceo and i said, you have made a lot of money over many years on missouri workers. to show corporate responsibility. it's time for you to commit to keep this plant open and protect these people's families. and i hope they will. senator mccaskill: he's been
8:54 pm
going in his pocket, keeping this plant open, and the people that run this plant, i was there weeks before josh showed up and i talked to everybody down there. they are not going to keep it open if they continue to lose the money they're losing every month. and guess where the customers are going? chinese nails, because the chinese nails are so much deeper than the largest nail company in america. that's what happens when you use a two by foreign tariffs instead of a scalpel to go after china. i want to leave enough time so we can bring closing arguments. depending on answers, we may or may not have time for rebuttals. welcome. person ingbt missouri, i can currently be fired from my job or evicted from my apartment or asked to leave a restaurant because of how i identify and who i choose to love. what is your plan to ensure people like myself and other
8:55 pm
lgbt individuals are not discriminated against? senator mccaskill: there is a difference between the two of us on this issue. josh has said he thinks the supreme court decision that legalized gay marriage was wrongly decided and was bad public policy. nevert think we should discriminate against anybody because of who they love. i'm the barest missouri still has a lot that you can be fired -- i'm embarrassed missouri still has a long that you can be fired for loving somebody who is law that yous a can be fired for somebody -- for loving somebody who is the same sex as you are. and i know it is painful for people to know that that is the law in missouri, that because you are gay, you can be fired and there is no recourse. a.g. hawley: thank you for that question. say i am against
8:56 pm
discrimination of anybody on any basis. i'm a constitutional lawyer by trade. i haven't been in politics for very long, but i've been a constitutional lawyer longer. believe all folks, their constitutional rights, whatever background, should be protected. i've spent much of my career folks'g to have constitutional rights protected. i'm for making sure there is no discrimination against anybody on any basis, and i also believe religious believers should have their rights, their free expression of worship, so long as it is peaceful, protected as well, and i think we could do both. moderator: we have time for 62nd rebuttals. do youwleysenator mccaskill: support getting rid of the law in missouri, that would end the ability for 70 to get fired if they are gay? to. hawley: she gets i
8:57 pm
ask the questions now? stated mccaskill: he has the supreme court decision on gay marriage was wrongly decided and that public policy. a.g. hawley: i have said it was --ngly divided because wrongly decided because the constitution leaves those issues to the states, but now it is the law of the land and needs to be enforced and is entitled to all the deference and support supreme court decisions are due. i'm against discriminating against anybody come up but it want to make sure the rights believers,us i know this is a flash point, that religious believers are protected as well. moderator: we have time for one more question. jeremy from kansas city. >> there is overwhelming evidence to show the correlation between lack of mental health
8:58 pm
resources and the homeless population. what do you intend to do to shore up those lack of resources? a.g. hawley: i agree with you, this is something that really gets to the kind of people we are, the character of our communities, and something that troubles me is that a lot of times we mention mental health issues of a some folks who struggle the most and get the least help are often veterans. we need to redouble our efforts to make sure veterans are given the mental health resources they need, if they struggle with ptsd, but i'm open to exploring all avenues. first of all, getting rid of the state must of stated with mental health issues. it's a medical struggle like any other struggle, and we should and to destigmatize that, then look for creative ways, using the best innovation of the private sector, the medical community, to make sure we are treating folks and helping them
8:59 pm
find resolution in the quality of lifestyle and become the full, contributing member of society they can't. senator mccaskill: thousands of people will be cut off from mental health care if josh hawley's lawsuit against obamacare is successful. so many more people were able to get insurance, and that is something we have got to think about. i was very involved in treatment courts, where we take people who have mental health issues, many homeless, that intersect with low-level crimes, and we try to get them the supervised treatment they need to get their lives back on the right course. that is extra money coming to missouri right now, have workedd i together to get additional funds into missouri for mental health treatment. treatingo not to quit mental health issues as if they
9:00 pm
were different from cancer or diabetes or a heart condition. they are a physical and a serious problem in our country, and i'm very proud i have been part of a group that has made sure mental health issues have to be covered in insurance policies. moderator: it is time for closing statements. miss mccaskill. senator mccaskill: this has been a tough campaign, it has been and my family because so much of it has involved false, personal attacks against us, and a record number of lies. people should going, and look at the independent fact checks. fact check after fact check after fact check. lie, lie, lie. he has lied about my record. he has not told the truth about his support for pre-existing conditions. your wages, description drug
9:01 pm
coverage, veterans benefits, order security. we disagree on a lot, but there is a lot of things we agree on. i get up every day and work across the aisle and get a lot done because i work with my colleagues. go on and check out all the things i have done on behalf of missouri. be pushy and obnoxious, but it is because it want to fight for you. a.g. hawley: you have got a big toy said the selection, and you have heard the differences clearly expressed today. senator mccaskill, i thank her for her service, 36 years of service to our state and our country, 12 years of service in the senate, i respect her for that. we just disagree on what this state needs. whois a liberal democrat opposes president at every turn, the president the people of this state spoke four. i am committed to standing up against my party when they are wrong. i will never ingratiate myself
9:02 pm
from a service in the u.s. senate, and i commit to always fighting for values of missouri and missouri's middle class. it's time for somebody who doesn't owe anything to anyone in washington, someone who hasn't been part of washington's old battles. i ask for your vote november 6. is it.or: that thank you to the candidates and for all of you watching tonight. be sure to get out and vote november 6. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] [applause] with the midterm elections just days away, what's the competition for control of congress on c-span. see for yourself the candidates from key house and senate races. make c-span your primary source
9:03 pm
for campaign 2018. ♪ washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. saturday morning, michael cannon of the cato institute, and si discuss health care in america, also, how the u.s. uses sanctions and how to prevent them being overused. watched c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 sunday morning. join the discussion. the c-span buses traveling across the country on our 50 capital store. during our stop in boston, we asked which party should control congress, and why? >> i'd like the house to remain republican because i like the way things are going right now. i like the way the economy is going.
9:04 pm
-- if ite switched to were to switch to democrats, it would created lot of gridlock. the way things are going right now it's one of the best runs in recent history. i would like it to stay that way. >> i would like the house to flippin november -- flip in november. i would like to see a democratic majority in the house because i don't like the way washington is going with this republican majority in the house. i want the house to remain in republican hands. i'm tired of gridlock and things not getting done. i'm afraid it will be another session of no change. >> the issue that is most important is for there to be balance in the house and the senate. bit andoffset a little force the administration to govern more from the center, which i think is important. center,govern from the
9:05 pm
i teach my students this as a history teacher, it's important to do that because it teaches us to have empathy for the other side, and also teaches us to be in the recognize other people and the issues that are important to them. ♪ states, partm the of c-span's 50 capital store. capitals tour. former presidential candidate chris christie talked about his career, and the trump presidency. he was interviewed by journalist elise jordan and answered questions from the audience. this is one hour. outello, thanks for coming everyone in los angeles. we are here today with governor chris christie, who


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on