tv Campaign 2018 Missouri U.S. Senate Debate CSPAN October 28, 2018 4:01pm-5:01pm EDT
you started this but your campaigns have joined in. question to both of you -- is this what voters deserve? a.g. hawley: thank you for the question and thanks to senator mccaskill. i want to start by saying that i'm delighted to have my wife with me today. we have two little boys at home, elijah, who is five, and blaze, who is 3. i am very concerned about the culture of instability, confrontation and outright violence we are seeing across the country. i think it is concerning to see politics come to this level. i have never attacked my opponent personally, i am not going to. this is not about us. this is about the people of the
state of missouri. but i have to say, when you hear leaders of the democratic party like hillary clinton saying you cannot be civil with people you disagree with, eric holder and other democrat leaders saying the new democratic party kicks people they disagree with, when you see these mobs popping up in the wake of the brett kavanaugh hearings, the screaming and shouting, this is terrible. this is not the united states of america, this is not civil discourse. i'm disappointed the democrat party has embraced this. i condemned that. no matter who does it. i would hope senator mccaskill would do the same. sen. mccaskill: did you notice he blamed it all on the democrats? that is the problem. this is the problem on both sides. we have to turn down the temperature. there are people being ugly on both sides. i have to disagree with you. he has spent this entire campaign trying to trash me personally. ad after ad that i am somehow
self-dealing, when all my republican colleagues 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 on issue and i'm proud of my bipartisan record. i do not sit in washington and blame the other guy. i get in the middle and work with colleagues of both parties. i understand some of this is leadership from the top. ronald reagan -- i may have disagreed with him -- but he worked hard to unite this country. you never would have heard him using rhetoric our president uses now. josh hawley says he disagrees with nothing the president has done. i don't know anybody i don't with something on. this is not a time to blame one party or the other, this is time to turn down the temperature, keep someone in who knows how to work across the aisle, with a strong bipartisan record and who would never engage in personal destruction of this campaign.
>> follow-up? a.g. hawley: with all due respect, you are no ronald reagan. listen, it is time we had someone who will call it like it is. president trump yesterday i believe, condemned this political violence. vice president pence has condemned the political violence. when nancy pelosi was recently chased out of the event, they condemned the violence. look at what happened with the brett kavanaugh hearing, it was the senate democrats who launched a personal campaign against brett kavanaugh. it was the senate democrats who laid in wait to try to ruin him and his family and destroy dr. ford in the process. it was senate democrats who perpetrated that and it was hillary clinton and eric holder who encouraged confrontation, if not violence. this has to stop. i'm willing to call anyone out who does it. we have to take responsibility.
sen. mccaskill: he still did not call out anybody from the republican side. this is so ridiculous. there is incredible incendiary rhetoric used by the president at his rallies. we all know that. i am not blaming it all on him but how can you get to discussion with -- without acknowledging it? as he knows, i made my decision on brett kavanaugh before the allegations surfaced. it was all about brett kavanaugh's allegiance to dark money and unlimited political contributions, which i understand he agrees with him on. the american people want to see who is buying these ads. >> on a morning when we found out the pentagon is considering sending 800 american troops to
to the southern -- the southern border. do either of you support shutting down the southern border if they get that far and some of these people may want to claim asylum once they reach the border and assuming they meet legal requirements, should it be granted? sen. mccaskill: absolutely we should secure the border. however is necessary. i agree the president should use any tool at his disposal to make sure our borders are not overrun. that is why the border patrol agents have endorsed me in this race. i have voted for more than $70 billion in border security money, including more money for the wall. i believe it is essential we secure the border with technology, barriers, personnel. way back in 2010 i passed a bill for more border security personnel and technology and reconnaissance drones. yes, first, secure the border. second, modernize and use technology to get the asylum
claims heard promptly. it takes forever, we have more -- we have less than 400 judges doing the work. we need to move an embassy to mexico to decide those cases before they get to the border. asylum cases should be heard. people who have legitimate claims should take advantage of our laws in that regard but everyone else needs to go back to their countries as quickly as possible. a.g. hawley: the president needs to take whatever steps necessary, if that means closing the border, he should do it. this is a potential national security crisis brewing by the hour and this president has stood strong and he needs to continue to do so. i am surprised to hear senator mccaskill talk about the border. let us get the facts. senator mccaskill has said the wall is embarrassing, that is her word. she has ridiculed president trump for wanting a border wall, she has repeatedly voted against
border security funding, she has voted for amnesty for illegal aliens and is currently sponsoring the most radical open borders bill ever introduced in the united states congress. those are the facts. that is a record of weakness. that is a record that invites chaos on the southern border, a liberal, democrat record, not what this state wants or needs. sen. mccaskill: border patrol agents looked at both candidates. they were the same agents who endorsed president trump. they looked at my record. unlike him, they did not cherry pick certain votes and mislead missouri. they looked at my entire record and decided i was the one they wanted to support, that i had their back. $70 billion i voted for in border security. i am one of four democrats that voted to cut off funding to sanctuary cities. he has misrepresented my record
time after time after time in this regard. the record is clear. i have never voted for amnesty, penalizing those who have broken the law? yes. dreamers came here through no fault of our own and are serving in our military and we need to welcome them. some of the things he characterizes my record as, as usual is not true. >> quick follow up. what is your sight for your claim she has voted for amnesty? a.g. hawley: she supported so-called comprehensive immigration bill that included amnesty provision. she said she voted against sanctuary cities but she is also voted for funding for sanctuary cities. she has called the wall "embarrassing." she has mocked the president for wanting a wall. she is sponsoring dianne feinstein's legislation, california liberal that would catch andi -- codify
release. those are not characterizations. those are facts. senator mccaskill is a liberal democrat when it comes to immigration, when it comes to the border and by the way, there is no shame in that. there is nothing wrong with that it is just not where the people of the state are and it is not what our country needs. sen. mccaskill: the is talking -- he is talking about a bill that was passed by a bipartisan margin in 2013 that included $25 billion for the wall. it was not amnesty. there were all kinds of penalties in the bill for people who violated the law, making them go to the end of the line, pay fines, all kinds of penalties. here is the thing -- he says i mocked the president. he is talking about hearing where the president's chief of staff said under no circumstances will we build a wall from sea to shining sea. he is the one who said it was absolutely not going to happen.
more barriers? yes. a wall in places that make no sense? i will not waste taxpayer money on that. >> question about health care. imagine this. both of you say you would consider alternatives to the affordable care act. one of them, that you both seem to be interested in is reinsurance, a pool of government money to help insurance companies pay for the most expensive patients. this would probably cost between $10 billion and $15 billion a year. could you vote for something like that and would you support it at that level? a.g. hawley: i support federal reinsurance and have proposed it is one way to deal with the problem of pre-existing conditions. my wife and i have a young boy, our five-year-old, who we learned has a joint condition,
pre-existing condition. this is something that is personal to us. i have long said, we do not need obamacare to cover people with pre-existing conditions. i have said federal reinsurance is one way to do it. senator mccaskill has signed on to a federal reinsurance bill and after attacking me relentlessly in the most personal terms, calling me a liar, attacking my son, she has signed on to a bill, federal reinsurance bill, exactly what i have proposed. which shows you this whole campaign has been a scare tactic for senator mccaskill. it is about scaring voters. i say we can get down costs, cover people with pre-existing conditions, without obamacare. that is not the liberal democrat line but it is what misery needs. sen. mccaskill: he knows i would never attack his son. i would never do that, josh. i told you in the last debate and you know it. this is what you are doing. it is so discouraging.
i retweeted a blog someone wrote that mentioned the ad where he mentioned his son, and the person who wrote that said he was using his son as a prop. i did not use that word. maybe i should not have tweeted the blog but i am not attacking your son. i wish he would call his buddy mitch mcconnell, he promised us a vote. he thought he could change the subject after they did repeal and replace and replace was so bad the republicans wouldn't vote for it. once that happened mitch , mcconnell wanted to change the subject and he thought everyone would forget about health care. i did 50 town halls. people talk about health care. they want to hold on to the consumer protections he is trying to get rid of in court. if you don't think he is trying to get rid of them, then why did his lawyers ask the judge to delay the decision on the case until after november? a.g. hawley: if senator mccaskill has said something interesting -- she has a federal
reinsurance bill she signed, you do not have to have obamacare in order to protect people with pre-existing conditions and yet she has been attacking me relentlessly, personally, calling me a liar repeatedly for saying we need to get rid of obamacare but we can protect people with pre-existing conditions without it. there is legislation that she supports to do so. she says people want to hold on -- they do not want obamacare. health care costs are up 145% on the exchange because of obamacare. last week in our debate, senator mccaskill said that was not very many people. it is 300,000 people who are paying those massive price increases, paying increases in drug costs, narrow dr. protocol. now she will not cross the aisle to replace and reform and get something better. i will. we need something other than the liberal democrat line. and i will fight for it. sen. mccaskill: the reinsurance bill will not give everyone with
pre-existing conditions protection. he needs to read this before the -- before he comments. he came out in favor of a reinsurance bill right away before he read it and figure out it was not going to cover it because it says, yeah, you get an insurance policy, but it does not have to cover pre-conditions. i'm for a lot of bipartisan solutions on health care. i have worked on them. i'm ready to vote on them. mitch mcconnell has not let us vote on them. make no mistake about it, when josh hawley decided to go to court with your tax dollars and wipe out pre-existing conditions, your kids stay on your policy until they are 26, women pay more for insurance, he made a conscious decision to do that knowing that there is no backup. there is no backup. that is why he does not want this case decided before november. >> quick follow-up for a second. mr. hawley, i would like you to explain this stance that you favor protecting pre-existing conditions and yet you are a
participant in this texas lawsuit that if it is successful would eliminate them. how does that square? mr. hawley: the texas lawsuit is about obamacare. i think we need to repeal and replace of obamacare. >> pre-existing is in there. mr. hawley: welcome we can cover -- well, we can cover pre-existing conditions without obamacare and we can do that a variety of ways. one is federal reinsurance. we are talking about collins-nelson, by the way, a federal reinsurance bill. you don't need obamacare in order to do that. you cited some of the details of it and asked if i would be willing to vote for something like that. i certainly would. and we don't have to have the individual mandate. you don't have to have the 159 new agencies under obamacare, the 20 new federal taxes for it. that is the kind of common sense solution people of this state need. >> quickly, sir, you are in the lawsuit that would eliminate pre-existing conditions, and yet you support them? square that away for me.
mr. hawley: obamacare has one particular way of protecting pre-existing conditions liked to -- linked to the individual mandate. it has given us the system we have now. i think people with pre-existing conditions like my son should not be held hostage to the higher cost and the narrowing networks. when we found out that my boy had a pre-existing condition, we went through the same thing that a lot of people had around the state, can we get coverage for the doctor we need? well, that doctor wasn't in the network. can we get a waiver? no. can we afford out-of-pocket? these higher costs are because of obamacare. we do not have to live with that. >> i want to give senator mccaskill time to respond. senator mccaskill: the collins-nelson bill has nothing to do with reinsurance. the pre-existing conditions part is in the law now. he wants to remove it. he went to yale for law school. i went to mizzou for law school
but i can keep up. 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 election when everyone was 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 -- are you in favor
of more cuts now, and it is a two-part question, so bear with me. -- raising taxes at a time what do you think of that? first, senator mccaskill. mccaskill: it is just 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 backwards -- they make you rich people's tax cuts permanent and middle-class tax cuts temporary. 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. and 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 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 deficit goes up because of the out-of-control spending. i think the middle class deserved 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 has 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, important to me as a guy from a small town, lowest in decades. she wants to take away that. and her party wants to raise taxes on everybody including the middle-class which is most important. so, i think we need somebody who is not going to follow the liberal democrat line, who is going to fight for the middle class and 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 congress and we were able to get rid of earmarks. i understand that we have got to be careful about spending. i have voted to cut programs. i would never raise taxes on middle-class families. we have not even looked 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 for middle-class tax cuts scraps. missouri families are saving $1200 or more a year. i grew up in a place called lexington, missouri, 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. it is costing missouri families higher premiums, higher deductibles, 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. in fact, you just signed a guide -- a gag bill that i believe you were a cosponsor of 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 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. when you see unemployment dropping and wage growth, when you see blue-collar job growth at its highest level since >> 1984. 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. that is fine. she is a liberal democrat. but she should own up to that. she has opposed to 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 difference. senator mccaskill: it is not the record. he just makes this stuff up. i voted 50% of the time with the president. 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. >> you do not like his style. senator mccaskill: i do not think we should be setting an example, the leader of the most amazing nation of the world, thinks it is ok to lie all 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 soybean farmers in missouri. 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 i have to say, i do not like that he lies all the time.
i think he sets a bad example. mr. hawley: maybe senator mccaskill is trying to make news today. and reverse her position on the wall. if she is, i welcome that and it is certainly newsworthy. but the fact is she has called , the wall embarrassing. she voted against a compromise deal for dreamers that the president proposed before that, because it included wall funny. -- wall money. she voted against justice kavanaugh. she voted against justice gorsuch. she voted against tax cuts. she even voted against the first female director of the cia. 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: republicans
do not even vote for it. they got only 28 votes. i voted plenty of time for border security and barriers, and gina haspel, i cannot share all the reasons, it has to do with torture, her involvement at the time she was in the cia. and torture that occurred. john mccain and i used to fight on things and dog's we disagreed on on the armed services committee, but i admired him so much because he was so adamant about that -- what that meant if we were ever going to be a country that allows torture, because that meant our men and women were going to suffer terribly. i really think my record reflects who i am. i look at each one individually. i make each decision individually. that is what i get so much done with my republican colleagues -- if it was not an election year, and they can tell you i
have somebody they can work with very >> we will be back as our commitment 2018 coverage continues. >> kmbc.com is your source for commitment the 18 coverage. the u.s. senate debate will return in a moment. >> welcome back, we begin the second half of this debate. the questions you are about to hear come from our audience. they were preselected. each candidate will have up to 90 seconds to answer. welcome. >> my question would be how would you propose to fix the student debt crisis that our young people face, but i want to tweak that a little and apparent -- and the parent debt.
mccaskill: it is a crisis that deserves more information. i have introduced legislation, which stops the garnishment of social security for student loan debt. that is how long these debts are hanging on. that is the kind of hangover that is hurting people. 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 your home loan. when the interest rates go down. why can't you refinance your student loan? it would be less money out of everybody's pocket 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 that the interest is owed to 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 have 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 like they have done at some of our community colleges, where they work with businesses to begin job-training while folks are still in school. it brings down the cost of higher education, it does job-training, and it helps our economy. there are 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 -- oh, and i'm walking too far -- 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 a skin in the game. they get tremendous amounts of money from the government. they get money from you twice, as a student or a parent and 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. i think we ought to say to universities look, if you take , student loan money from the students, you 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. we ought to allow student loan -- federal student loan dollars to follow people into apprenticeships and job training programs. why should universities and colleges have a monopoly on this? allow the money to flow to those who do not want 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 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. guess who is trying to reverse 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 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. 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 i agree 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: 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 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. 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. >> 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, for an all-out ban? mr. hawley: can you tell me your name again? >> angelo. mr. hawley: as the father of two young boys, my wife and i, when
we drop off our little boys at school, we want them to be safe. i think every parent wants that. 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. there is a common-sense way to do that. we have a national background check system that has a huge 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 want 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 am proud of that because i believe in the second amendment, and i believe we can protect folks, protect their rights, keep children safe without threatening their constitutional right. senator mccaskill: i think my record is pretty clear. the nra is always against me.
i am for universal background checks. i'm for banning bump stocks. 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 been passed? because people go to the nra, go to congress and worry more about what 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, 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 -- a complaint was filed with the attorney general's office. and when we called to ask about it, 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 am for or against, that so -- somebody can come in and commit fraud and getting your computers -- and get in your computers and the attorney general does nothing. that cannot be the new normal. >> i want to give both of you 60 seconds. mr. hawley: there is the washington two-step. 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 -- 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. senator mccaskill: i am not asking -- by the way, he appointed special prosecutors all the time. 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 try to criminal case in his life. maybe he should be appointing 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 said -- come in and ask me any question. i am afraid of an attorney general that says when somebody comes in and steals proprietary information from somebody's
computer. >> indulge me. ms. mccaskill, do you blame mr. hawley's campaign for that video. senator mccaskill: no. what i do blame him for is, when a complaint is filed with the merchandise practicing act, with a clear case laid out, that instead of 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, she said i committed fraud, that i participated in a fraud -- she said that on television. 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.
>> 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.? senator mccaskill: this is a good place for me to talk about our records. i spent years cross-examining criminal defendants. 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 into washington, i could go into the books and spend years cleaning it up. 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 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. i have always tried to put missouri first and i hope people go online and look at the fact checks of all of the ads that been done by third-party groups to see all of the misrepresentations and lies being said about my record and to 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. and that is exactly what i will do. it is what i have done as attorney general. senator mccaskill has attacked my record as attorney general. i will stack it up against hers as united states senator.
i have been independent. 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. 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. 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 will be a fighter for the 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 gagillion of dollars saying i am corrupt. 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. whoops, turns out the ladder was in the truck. 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 the cleanup of the lobbyists getting unlimited gifts in jefferson city? that would be zero. those were the two promises he made. --, as to the human traffic trafficking, i've got to mention this. he went down to springfield, putting a badge around his neck, i've got to mention this. 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 sought permanent injunctions to keep those businesses permanently shut, which is all the authority my office has. i was in court the next money to -- the next morning in order 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. 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. 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.
mccaskill: there is one thing that is not a lie. sex trafficking is a serious felony and you file a felony and they go to jail. filed ines were ever missouri as a result of this that hesting operation did. so, i think it is great that you got violations on their licensing and if they had not filled out the right business forms -- >> we shut them down senator mccaskill: that is wonderful but they are still operating. >> we need to move on. barbara spengler. >> thank you. i am sorry, allergies. promises of our current administration was to keep u.s. companies in the united states.
that washe tax cut passed, specifically for one veryons, left important texted option in there and that was moving expenses. moving expenses that included moving your operation out of this country. -- what are your thoughts on the failure of our administration to fix this loophole? : thank you for that question and the issue of keeping jobs in this state is huge. i will tell you one little stare. the town i grew up in, we used to have a manufacturing operation that made the gunstock for remington rifles and that plant closed down. we lost those jobs and it has
been devastating for my little town, population 5000. that story has been repeated across the state and the country and i think president trump has done a great job of saying -- we are going to stand up to trade cheaters like china, we will stand up to mexico, to canada, and anyone that would tried it -- would try to take our jobs. made some other changes to try to get the companies to relocate back to the united states. the issue you raised is an interesting one and worth looking at. i think we need to do everything we can to force american companies to keep working are, to bring back those jobs. what i don't agree with is the policy of appeasement and weakness that senator mccaskill and the liberal democrats have followed for years. they are content to let wages be stagnant for decades. to see jobs go overseas. it has been the party line. that is not acceptable. we are starting to make progress and we have to push forward and not turn back now.
senator mccaskill: the democrats worked hard to require the government to buy american products. and the question you asked, it was an amendment that i offered at a finance committee. one of my colleagues offered. i cannot remember who offered it to actually make sure that if someone was moving a company out of the country they could not do. the cost of breaking down that factory and moving those jobs overseas. it was defeated on a partyline vote. it was the democrats that wanted to get rid of that deduction. the republicans wanted it to stay in the law. i don't know why. and i will tell you that these are such a double edge sword for our state. you look at midcontinent in south bluff, do you know where those jobs are going to go if they cannot get really from the he tariffs?-- to
to mexico. now, they will be forced to pull that plant back down to mexico .ecause of the tariffs all of us want more american jobs. that is where joss and -- josh and i agree. : senator mccaskill mentioned midcontinent now. the mexican parent company -- this is a company that bought this missouri owned company, they bought them in 2012. the missouri owned company was very profitable. mexican company bought it. the mexican company made a lot of money on this company. but now, the mexican company in the space of a month has laid off half the workforce and has said they will lay off all the rest of it. i went and spoke to the local folks there. we ask that the administration for an exemption. but i also caused -- called the
mexican seo and i said -- you have made a lot of money over the years on missouri workers but now it is time to show some corporate responsibility. it is time for you to commit to keep this plant open. and i hope you will. mccaskill: he has been going in his pocket keeping this plant open. and the people there that run the plant, i was there weeks before josh showed up, they are not going to keep it open if they continue to lose the kind of money they are losing every month. guess where their company -- guess where their customers are going? chinese nails. that is what happens when you 44 tariffs --by four for tariffs. >> we may or may not have time for rebuttals.
welcome. >> as an lgbt person in misery i from myently be fired job coming evicted from a restaurant, or asked to leave a restaurant. i'm asking what is your plan to ensure that people like myself and other lgbt individuals are not discriminated against because of how they identify? mccaskill: i think there is a difference on both of us regarding this issue. was badports -- and public policy. i do not think we should ever discriminate against anyone because of who they love. i am embarrassed that missouri still has a law that says you can be fired because you love sexone that is the same that you are. i do not think that is the right way forward for missouri and i hope we get enough votes in the missouri legislature to change that. but i do certainly no that it is very painful for people to know
that that is the law of missouri . that because you are gay, you can be fired and there is absolutely no recourse. >> thank you for that question. i am against that discrimination of anybody on any basis. and i am a constitutional lawyer by trade. i of not been in politics for very long. that youreve constitutional rights should be protected. and i have spent much of my career helping folks have their constitutional rights protected. i am sure -- i am for picking sure there is no discrimination -- and i know this is a flashpoint but i believe religious believers should have their rights to their free expression of worship as long as it is peaceful. fore do have 62nd rebuttals
both of you. senator mccaskill: do you support getting rid of the law allow someone to be fired because they are gay? i did not hear the answer. >> fishy asking the questions now? is she askingf -- the questions now? he has mccaskill: i know stated that the supreme court's decision on gay marriage was wrongly decided a bad public policy. >> i have said it was wrongly decided but it is the law of the land and has been decided. and it has to be enforced. and is entitled to all of the enforcement that the supreme court decisions are due. i am against discriminating against anyone on any basis but i do want to make sure that the rights of religious believers in particular, because i know this is a flash point, that religious
believers are protected as well. you.ank i think we have time for just one more question. a quick one. jeremy. is a consistent issue in misery and there is overwhelming evidence to show the correlation between the lack of mental health resources and the homeless population. thoseill you do to ensure mental health resources? >> that gets to the kind of people we are and the character of our communities. often, mental health issues are mentioned -- those that struggle these types of issues are often veterans. i think we need to redouble our efforts to make sure that veterans in particular are given the mental health resources that they need when they come back from overseas as they struggle with ptsd. but i also a mix -- am open to exploring all of the options.
getting rid of the stigma often associated with mental health issues. struggle like any other kind of struggle and we should work 2-d stem -- the stigmatize that. de stigmatize that. senator mccaskill: thousands of people will be shut off from mental health care if in fact josh holly's lawsuit on obamacare goes through because that has been a path towards mental health assistance in our country that was not there before because so many more people were able to get insurance. and i think that is something we have to think about. i was very involved in treatment court where we take people with try tohealth issues and get them the supervised treatment a need to get their
lives back on the right course. coming intora money missouri right now -- roy blunt and i have worked together to get additional funds for mental health treatment. we have to stop treating mental health issues as if they were different from cancer, diabetes, or a heart condition. they are a physical and serious problem in our country and i am very proud to be part of a group that has major that mental health issues have to be covered in interest policies. >> it is time for your closing statements to this debate tonight. senator mccaskill: this has been a really tough campaign. it has been really hard honestly for me and my family. because so much of it has involved false personal attacks against us. and a record number of lies. if you go on to claire mccaskill.com look at all of the independent fact checks.
, lie.ie he lies about my record. he has not told the truth about his support for getting rid of protection for pre-existing conditions. i have tried to stay focused in this campaign on things that matter to you -- wages, veterans benefits, border security. we disagree on a lot in missouri but there are a lot of things that we agree on. i get up every day and work across the aisle and get a lot done because i worked with my republican colleagues. go on claire mccaskill.com and check out all of the things that i've accomplished. i know i can be pushy and obnoxious but it is because i want to fight for you. >> thank you again for having us. i think you have a big choice in this election and you have heard the differences of opinion clearly expressed here today. senator mccaskill -- i thank her again for her service, 36 years
to our state and country. we disagree on what the state needs. she is a liberal democrat that has opposed the president on every turn, opposed the agenda that the state has voted for. i'm willing to work across party lines with anyone to stand up to my party when they are wrong. i commit to never ingratiating myself or benefiting myself for my service in the united state senate and i commit to always fighting for the values of missouri and for the middle class. i think it is time for somebody that does not owe anyone to anyone in washington come as someone that is ready to fight for misery. >> and that is it for us tonight. thank you to the candidates and all of you for watching tonight. the short to get out there and vote on november 6. [applause] >> with nine days until election
day, c-span will have two tomorrow.018 debates for a month bernie sanders faces his opponent. see it live beginning at noon eastern. in kentucky's sixth district, mcgrath. debates amy live coverage of that debate from lexington begins at 8:00 p.m. watch both debates on c-span, your primary this week on washington journal we are looking at battleground states, the most competitive races of the midterm election. minnesota, new york, california, pennsylvania, and florida. join us for the life campaign 2018 during washington journal at 7:00 a.m. eastern. ♪
>> the candidates in the maine governor's race republican shawn , moody, democrat janet mills, independence participated in a debate on they are running to thursday. replace paul lepage. listsok political report the race as a tossup. >> this is a special commitment 2018 presentation, the gubernatorial debate. broadcasting across the entire state of maine, here is your host, meghan torjessun. >> good evening and welcome to the debate. we are coming to you tonight from the campus of university of maine at augusta. this debate is broadcasting statewide thanks to our partnerships.