or other ob/gyn emergencies and it had to send them to the operating room to terminate the pregnancy or the woman would die. this is who i am. this is my experience, this is how i'm going to represent you as your united states senator. >> thank you. senator cantwell, would you like response? >> avs said people are losing their life over this as a saw in georgia. we need people who are going to stand up and fight for this right to be restored. the challenges we face is that the republican party except for key people in the united states senate have basically decided they want this to be up to individual states. i am saying this is a right that women should have added national level. that i'm going to spend my time advocating for it to pass into federal law. >> thank you, senator. would you like response per? yes. the dobbs decision to create a lot of anxiety and discomfort throughout the country.

i want the women of washington to understand my stance. i'm not asking you to trust every republican just as a as a wooden ask you to trust every democrat. i'm asking you to trust me. i am going to defend the state as a pro-choice state everyday as a u.s. senator representing washington state. >> thank you, doctor. i'd like to ask one follow up on this topic. there's of course been proposed legislation that would restore roe v. wade style protections at the federal level. you both have spoken to that. senator cantwell, would you vote for a bill that restores those protections that allows for state restrictions, , states to enact their own restrictions after people live in the? >> we have laws on the books to do that now, and the confusion and management in washington about this, in idaho, is a perfect example of why i

wouldn't support that. please put roe v. wade back into federal statute. this issue now is how the woman week being transported from idaho to washington. she may want to keep the pregnancy. she's walking into a facility and asking for help, and they're saying, because they're worried about their cases against them, are saying please get on on e and go to seattle. and so even though people would say they have exemptions or they have specifications, the confusion that this year today is not tolerable. evil should not be losing their lives over it a people shouldn't be losing pregnancies that they want to keep. >> thank thank you, senator. i want to note the clock, give you 60 seconds and we'll do the same for dr. garcia. i will not ask of another follow up on this topic you but dr. garcia usage you saidd not vote for federal legislation that further restricts abortion nationwide. would you vote for the kind of legislation senator cantwell is talked about that would restore

those protections? >> as a physician and representing the state of washington of a cbs2 at your question. and let me explain that. i think that there should be a safety net in our country to make sure that women have access if they choose that, up to fetal viability. this is the law in washington state. so being the senator from washington state and being a physician with a lived experience in situations that need that termination, yes, i would support it. and i would add this. i would sit with my republican colleagues and explain this, and i would ask you who do you think those republican colleagues are going to listen to more, the doctor with lived experience or a democrat? >> well, --

>> thank you, dr. garcia. we need to move on. we have a lot to get you here. we are going to turn back to the screen again. with a question from a contact a student. >> my name is anthony tomorrow, and i'm a student at gonzaga university. and here's my question. what role do believe the federal government should play in combating climate change, and what is your plan in reducing carbon emissions and promote clean energy here in washington state? thank you. >> we will start with dr. garcia, you have 62nd. >> we are lucky to live in one of the cleanest faces on earth. and we should all bind together to make sure our children have the same clean place, not only here but anywhere in the world. so i am a big proponent of keeping our environment clean. i am a proponent of clean energy. i have of the fact we have

hydroelectric energy and our state at chernobyl that 70% of our energy. i am a proponent of nuclear energy in our state, the ones we have, and more that we could go after. but i want to also bring up that if we are the cleanest place on earth, i am in support of bringing our manufacturing and our industries back to america where we care about the environment, and stop outsourcing our jobs to places that really don't care as much. >> thank you. thank you, dr. garcia. senator cantwell, you have one minute. >> i i was at his responsibly because physicians, they don't support establishing roe v. wade. i really like my colleagues susan collins and lisa murkowski but they haven't convinced me of the people in their caucus either.

so for the fighting. can you believe we are fighting over idf? but that's forwarding because we believe in letting families have ivf treatment. i believe climate change is real. i believe that as passing the climate reduction act set this up into state of washington to not only innovate here and diversify our energy sources but we are leaving the world and some of the most innovative energy, whether it's a hydrogen hub for smart grid or battery technology in moses lake, or some of the innovation that is being done at the p&a lap we are on the next generation of energy front that is great help us meet these climate call. >> thank you, senator. dr. garcia would you like response? >> yes. first of all of what you want to know that have participated in ivf so of course i some support it. i'm also in favor of hydrogen, and we're lucky as senator cantwell stated to have at&l

here in our state. what are the only 13 labs in the country. we want to be in the forefront, the leaders in climate change in the country and as you're nice to center i will be your champion of it. >> thank you. senator cantwell. >> with these devastating to do everything i can to prove to people that this is impacting our taxpayers. so in a bipartisan effort susan collins and i asked the government accounting office to give us estimates just two weeks ago came up and said it's costing us billions of dollars. our state, setting up people on innovation to solve the thorniest problems, like how to get battered technology to last longer, how to transfer a charge faster, how to fuel airplanes which i authored the language of all things that are going to help us diversify. >> thank you, senator. now as the country transitions

to more renewable energy sources the columbia basin has become an increasingly important source of hydropower. dash of northwest tribes ate existing infrastructure like the lower snake river dams and new developments like the goldendale energy storage project damage the natural world in other ways and violate the treaty they signed with the federal government. how should congress balance the countries energy needs with the rights of tribal nations? senator cantwell. >> it's so important that we do everything we can because we now need about 30% more power than we have to do. that's how much our state is going to grow. i want to do everything we can to keep the historic low energy electricity costs that we've had as a state. it has build our economy over and over and over again. but we have to live up to our treaty obligations for abundant salmon and that is why i fought hard against bristol bay, goldmine alaska have destroyed

salmon sockeye. probably some of the largest runs in the world and yet people were going to build a goldmine and destroy the period . and what i fought here for record amount of salmon funding to remove barriers and to build our hatchery fish so we can take some of the pressure off of the system. >> thank you, senator dr. garcia one minute. >> well, i pay a lot of electricity in my house with five children. so i understand that. there's never enough and this is why i am very much in favor of new ideas. and expanding our nuclear program even here in washington. ..

there culture that keeps the culture alive sorry we are out of time. i was very involved in something that was bipartisan and brought together the how did we get the water farmers, environmentalists, all got together and agreed to build more capacity for our region that was an exemplary way to

make progress in his issues. >> i agree as long as we depend on energy for higher culture estate, we need to find a balance and make sure which they work really hard to preserve seven state. >> would like to turn. >> one year since hamas and other militant groups killed offenders some people and fairly 100 remain in gaza thinking 40000 people and also while are provided 18 million and military

age. all of the united states is condolences for everyone. it's always been a strong ally of the united states from terrorist activities and united states so we should support our allies. the i do agree or support of our

allies are purpose but not only cost just the citizens. we need to do everything we can to bring hostages back home. united states supports israel because it's a democracy in the middle east and we should stop read that is five is outlined achieve his father and us we

need to do a very good states. >> would you like to respond or elaborate? >> stark difference between the seller and i she voted to release assets to iranians which in turn iran used october 7 is your u.s. senator iran is an organization will that doesn't work that of world peace of the u.s. or leader of will. >> that is inaccurate, give 100 billing to iran. i did some of the agreement i would have said the united states and other partners of the security council to go to iran

and say the were not developing nuclear weapons and yes, i and yes i trust the pacific northwest lab. one of the leading institutions of detection in our nation to help us figure that out. what we did do is say that we are going to continue sanctions on iran. we will talk more about that may be and show why that is so helpful. >> moderator: i want to talk about ukraine and russia. it has been more than a decade since russia seized crimea and two years since russia launched its full-scale invasion of ukraine. in that time congress has appropriated about $175 billion in response including one hundred billion aid to the ukrainian government. what should our country's role be in that conflict, and end the war if it required ukraine to give us any part of its territory?

>> cantwell: i've supported our efforts to stabilize ukraine from a russian aggressor, and by report naps efforts to attack ukraine. we need to stand up to that aggression. we are not only protecting ukraine, we are protecting europe, we are protecting our nato allies. it is so important that we continue to help ukraine. i'm for auditing what we are doing, standing up for ukraine. we have 2000 ukrainian refugees in spokane and we are standing with him because democracy and aggressors are the things we want to stop. aggressors want to stop seeing democracy continue. >> i came from cuba which was a tyrannical government. i could put you there. that's the only way to live that experience. my heart is with the ukrainian

people. to see a tyrannical government try to take them over. the united states was correct in supporting the ukrainian people. i differ with senator cantwell when she says she doesn't believe in auditing the money we are sending to ukraine. i think my colleagues in the senate are asking for accountability and transparency. we want to make sure the money we are using with taxpayers money to help a country succeed, we have transparency and accountability on. >> thank you. would you like to respond? >> cantwell: my father served in world war ii as did his brother was a pow, i know what rand paul is up to. he wants to audit this money and be an isolationist. we have to stand up to vladimir putin and it's aggression. i believe right now we should join more of a sanctioned oversight and transparency,

continues to get india and china to put sanctions on russia is the way to go. >> thank you, senator. doctor garcia come you have 30 seconds. >> garcia: i'm again going to mention as a government, to earn the trust of all our citizens who are seeing all this money go out when we have so any problems such as fentanyl in our backyard. we get accountability and transparency and i would be on the side favoring auditing this money and making sure it is going to the proper places in ukraine. >> moderator: you mention fentanyl. we will get to that in a moment. immigration in the border. congress has failed to pass major immigration reforms since 1986. as a us law has not changed the reality on the ground. an estimated 11 million people live in a country without

authorization despite roles in the us economy including washington's agricultural industry and since the pandemic, a record number of people cross the border illegally to seek asylum beginning a legal process that can take years to conclude. of electives what would you do to address immigration and the border. we start with doctor garcia. >> any sovereign country should have the right to vote who comes in and out of the country. when we lose the rights of that who comes in and out of our country we lose that sovereignty. not only are we not vetting who comes in and out of the country but we are allowing drugs and crime to come into our country. the embarrassing thing for the american government is we don't know who is coming into the country but the cartels know exactly who is going into the country and are pulling money back for being here. i am an immigrant to this country.

i think this country was created by immigrants with the fire to find the best place in the world for their children and that created the greatest country in the world, and i will always support immigration. but we need to have better leadership and discipline at our borders so we remain a sovereign nation. thank you. >> senator cantwell. >> i have voted for probably four different bipartisan bills. the partners are very right and left members. larry craig from idaho, people member him, add ted kennedy, not exactly like kindred spirits on policy. even now, kiersten sinema and james lenkford, john mccain and ted kennedy, and every time, even though 78 or 80 votes out of the united states senate would be killed by conservatives who just didn't want to do anything to allow

for a legal process to be established for the workforce we depend on particularly in central washington. i do support and immigration policy that will allow us to bring people from mexico who want to work here and return to mexico and i will do everything we can to continue to fight and get appropriations for the border. >> thank you. you have 30 seconds to respond. >> i want to talk about certain topics of immigration we may not come back to. i'm all in favor of the dreamers, the daca kids across the border not having 18 years of age to be given citizenship yesterday. to the other people that have been here for years and have paid taxes and have been reputable people i would give permanent residency to but if you come to this country to commit crime you are out. >> thank you. i want to ask a follow-up

question on this, you both have thoughts on donald trump and his running mate have repeated false rumors about haitian immigrants who have settled in ohio town. as you mentioned you your self left another caribbean nation as a child to come to the us. i would like to know what each of you makes of the rhetoric about immigrants in particular in this race. i will start with doctor garcia. >> i'm going to be a champion of immigrants. i am one. i came to this country searching for that american dream and everyone in this audience, may not have been you but it may have been your ancestors that had the same fire as my mother to come and work three job so i could succeed so i'm always going to be a champion of immigration in this country.

i believe that we have placed a large bureaucracy on legal immigration. the first thing we have to do is make it easier to come into this country legally. and the second thing we have to do is what i said, evaluate who is here. washington state depends on a lot of these immigrants for our economy and i'm going to be a champion of them. >> thank you. you have one minute on the rhetoric point in particular. >> it is horrible and everybody should speak against it and now every minute of national news is donald trump saying that immigrants have caused this problem, this problem, this problem including taking money out of fema that they don't have to help respond to the storm. demonizing the backbone of who built america is not the way to go. i do believe in the dream act and i lament the fact is that when i came to the senate or in

hatch and others sponsored the dream act, there are still people who sponsored the dream act but they don't necessarily get it over the goal line. they will help defeat it if it is a partyline vote and what i think is so important when i did the chips in science act i said to my colleagues let's just let people stay who have been educated here and have a phd and they said no. i said just tell me how many that will help us be competitive and keep our defense, how many will you let stay here and they said no. >> thank you. i want to turn to another topic you both made a major focus of your campaigns and that is fentanyl. fentanyl and other synthetic opioids have killed about 75,000 americans in the last two years according to the cdc over the past year drug overdose deaths have fallen nationwide but increased here in washington state. everyone in congress agrees this is a problem but what

would you do differently to address it? we start with senator cantwell. >> cantwell: we created a national emergency and gave the president new tools to go after cartels like the one that was in the press recently to stop the flow of fentanyl. we passed money as part of our appropriations process to put more money at the border for tools for detection, surveillance, and to help stop the flow of fentanyl but i also am supporting federal legislation looking at our entire transportation system, and next-generation technology to detect the vapors so we can stop at slow. i do also support a treatment process that's more streamlined. the university of washington has established that is shown a 68% reduction in fentanyl deaths. that's what i'm fighting for. >> thank you. doctor garcia.

>> that should read 60 seconds we will give you. >> i walked 185 miles to elevate awareness of this crisis in this country. there's a human being dying every four minutes and 40 seconds. this is a crisis and we need to make harsh decisions and i think this is where we differ. my first bill is the americans against fentanyl act which will give manslaughter felony charges to drug dealers and put them in prison and apply involuntary mandatory rehabilitation. as a doctor i can tell you addiction's brain will tell people to lie, cheat and steal to get the next fix or they are going to die. this is why it has to be involuntary. everyone who has succeeded in

treatment said thank you for making that decision when i couldn't make it for myself. >> you have 40 seconds. >> i fight every day for our state in the senate but i tell you how i do it. the university of washington, leading research institution in this area and being in the community is the best way to do this, they went to the state legislature and republican and democrat signed up for that. that's not the plan of doctor garcia's. this is the plan our state wants, 68%. >> the difference between my listening tour and senator cantwell as i go to the street and talk to the addicts, not

the media, not community organizers. people that are involved and they tell us you need an iron fist, or we are going to lose our country. >> we are going to turn to the video screen for another question. >> my name is laura erickson. this is my question. spokane reports 37% increase in the homeless population from 22 to 23. the commerce department, 13,000 age 12 to 24 are on the street in unsafe or and stable housing situation. if elected what steps would you take to help remedy this crisis? >> we will start with doctor garcia. >> the homeless problem solution has to be a triple play solution. this could be the root of the cause.

the first step is drug rehabilitation, second step is mental health, the third step is housing, not housing first. this is why this program has been so ineffective. the same with harm reduction. we are telling addicts here are the needles, here's the pipe, here's the foil, here is low barrier housing so you can do your drugs. this is, although i think it is a step in the right direction this is not a destination, we need a true solution, we need to take these individuals out of that environment, and the homeless crisis, we need to do it in that order. >> thank you. >> the mischaracterization to think that everybody who is homeless is on drugs. i know a woman from my county in edmonds, washington who

literally lost her apartment because it had mold and she had to leave and didn't have any place to go and literally lived in her car. this issue is about building supply. there's a study that shows for every 2,300 units of more affordable supply you build, you drive down the cost, $2,000 in annual rent costs, we need to build more supply, spokane knows this and that is why places like gonzaga haven and other affordable housing projects are done. i've worked in a bipartisan basis in the united states senate to lead the bill that will help us build these affordable units. >> you have 30 seconds. >> again, we need to go to the root cause. those mothers that lose their house and are out there with the child, that's our first priority. but the people in the street the do not want to get out of

the street need to be taken out of that environment and given the resources to be brought back to the families, until when are we going to perpetuate this behavior in this permissive society that we live in today? >> would you like to respond? >> if anybody can look up gonzaga haven it's a perfect example, got funding for them in spokane. literally reunited families that became homeless and were torn apart and the whole mission of gonzaga haven is to give them access to childcare and to get them back into their education system so they can be trained and skilled and productive members of society. that's a great example and should be followed by other places. >> i want to talk about healthcare. americans spend more on health care per person than any other wealthy country in the world yet we have some of the worst health outcomes among those

countries by measures including life expectancy, maternal mortality and diabetes. what should congress to do to improve our nation's healthcare system? we start with senator cantwell. >> cantwell: i mentioned value-based purchasing, paying for outcomes in healthcare delivery system. think what we do in the inflation reduction act. we saved billions of dollars for american consumers just by saying the federal government can negotiate, we negotiate for veterans and drive down their there cost by 25%. why shouldn't we have the same ability to negotiate against all prescriptive drug purchases, not just medicare. this is the way to save billions in our national system and is why i fight and advocate for it. >> thank you. doctor garcia.

>> being an emergency physician i'm deeply into the situation where i live in a state where i couldn't place patients. we ranked 50th in availability. healthcare is a big issue but we are not talking the pink elephant in the room. the power of healthcare today should be in the hands of doctors and patients and a person from washington state should have to get a quote from alabama, florida, new jersey that balances more of the power to the patient. i'm also not sure insurance companies should be in wall street. i have patients and need approval on an mri and don't get it but that insurance company, in that quarter, is

good. >> this may be something where doctor garcia and i agree on because these pharmacy benefit manager middle men that we are trying to fight in the united states senate are taking over prescription drug markets, they literally have become the third or fourth highest entities on wall street because they have so much power to determine the cost of prescription drugs. i have legislation and we are going to get it passed with chuck grassley's help to stop their bad practices. >> doctor garcia, would you like to elaborate? >> we also need the reimbursement to be higher. back in 2,008 i went into senator cantwell's office and told her our reimbursement in washington was one of the lowest in the state, in the country. that we needed to bring it up, her answer to me was we are going to bring everybody's

reimbursement down to our level so we are on an even playing field. this makes us lose resources in the state of washington. we need reimbursements to be better. >> i would like to move on to online privacy and technology. major us check companies, some of which are headquartered in washington state have become the most powerful companies in the world. part the because unlike 80% of the world's population, americans are not protected by national law governing how those companies can collect and use our personal data. senator cantwell, you've made data privacy a focus of yours for years but the us remains the only major developed country in the world without a nationwide privacy standard. which congress do to regulate the tech industry, starting with doctor garcia. >> garcia: i think all of us

have answered yes to every online subscription we have, that we agree with their terms and conditions. some of those terms and conditions is that they will share our information. es. our government should protect our citizens. we should have privacy in what we do with our lives, and that we should be the owners of. not these companies and i do think congress has a place to come in and regulate that privacy for the benefit of our citizens. that's our job. to protect our rights and to protect what we have in america and privacy should be number one. >> thank you. i want to clarify something on the last point. value-based purchasing is how you get more money for washington.

that is what we've got in the affordable care act. the affordable care act as work, it is expanded care throughout our state, hundreds of thousands of people. on privacy, i'm fighting very hard with kathy mcmorris rodgers that the american people deserve to have a privacy right and if these companies or the government i miss using your information you have the ability to go take action against them. the privacy right, if you use harm to our citizens, when we reach the ai age and people using our own information against us it is time to pass a lot. we passed two kids privacy bill to the house of representatives and republicans killed those. we are trying to get people like ted cruz and others to agree to do privacy but we are not giving up. we are going to get this done because americans deserve this right. >> i apologize but because we are short on time we will get

to closing statements and we start with senator cantwell. >> cantwell: thanks to everyone and a doctor garcia. this election couldn't be more important, about the future direction of our country. are we going to grow the middle class again which we started with this incredible surge of bringing manufacturing and supply chain back to the united states with higher wage jobs, are we going to lower costs like i said we been able to do for seniors but now spread that out across a larger population? are we going to build more affordable housing as i mentioned, and continue to lead on this issue with low income housing tax credit was are we going to invest in apprenticeships to train for the jobs of tomorrow that are here today so people can make those 6 figure incomes? spoken is on the professors of this, you may the right investments. i'm asking your support in the u.s. senate race.

>> doctor garcia. >> cantwell: [speaking in native tongue] >> garcia: my intent was to instill in you the confidence and the hope that together we could have a better washington. change is hard. senator cantwell had a chance four times of making it right. i'm asking you for one. one chance at bringing true solutions to our problems. we can keep voting the same way and keep having the same problems outside our window and doors or you can take a leap of faith on this skinny cuban kid that fought hard to achieve the american dream and i promise you that as your next united states senator every step, every action, every breath i take every day will be to represent the will of the

people of washington to honor the greatest country in the world and to pay her back for everything it does for us. thank you. >> moderator: and that concludes today's debate, thank you all. [applause] [applause] >> and now in an unusually competite race for the maryland u.s. senate gopormer governor larry hogan participated in a debate with democrat angela alsobrooks, larry hogan was questioned on his relationship with donald trump in light of his criticism of the trump administration. democrat alsoworks was questioned oner acceptance of a tax break wch she did not

qualify for. the results of the senate race could determine whether democrats or republicans get control of the senat the nonpartisan cook political report rated this race as likely democratic. the debate was hosted by maryland public television. this is about an hour. >> good evening and welcome to the 2024 maryland senate the eighth. at maryland public television in maryland. we are excited to bring you tonight's debate. from maryland public television. i am chuck todd, nbc chief analyst and moderator of tonight's debate between the democrat candidate angela alsobrooks and republican larry hogan. let's cover the rules for today's event, the lead debate will last one hour and begin with 90-2nd opening statements

from each candidate that our panelists and myself will post directions directly to the candidates. our team of panelists generated the questions. the candidates have not seen them in advance. each candidate will have one minute to respond and the candidate answering the first will get an additional 30-second rebuttal. i reserve the right to follow up. finally we will conclude with one minute closing statements from each candidate. there's a timekeeper who will notify candidates of their remaining time and when time is expired. and interest of covering as much ground as possible we ask them to adhere to these time limits so let's welcome our panelists all of whom covered maryland politics for decades. tracy wilkins is an investigative reporter with the news 4 i team in washington dc. deborah wenger is an anchor at wbal tv 11 at baltimore. and now the candidates. republican and former governor of maryland larry hogan and democrat and current prince

george county executive angela alsobrooks. with that be good and with the debate, county executive alsobrooks has the first opening statement. >> alsobrooks: i would like to thank our hosts for having us today, governor hogan for being here and everyone for tuning in. i'm angela alsobrooks, proud democratic nominee for united states senate. like lenny marylanders i'm a member of the sandwich generation, proud mother of a 19-year-old daughter and proud daughter of a retired receptionist and newspaper delivery man. i grew up in maryland and spent my entire adult life in public service, beginning my career as a domestic violence prosecutor where i stood up for our families and held violent offenders accountable. as elected prosecutor i also lowered violent crime by 50%. as county executive i've been one of the top job creators in the state of maryland. we built ten new schools and are breaking ground on an additional 8.

in the united states senate i will stand up for our values, creating economic opportunity for every maryland family. i will also fight for our freedoms like a woman's right to choose, contraception and ivf and to make sure that we are ending gun violence in america. i will work also to hand the majority to my friend and mentor, president kamala harris, to ensure that she will be successful and effective as president of the united states. thank you so much and i look forward to answer your questions. >> thank you. your opening statement. >> hogan: i want to thank nbc and its affiliates in washington and baltimore. it's a pleasure to be here. i want to thank all of you for tuning in tonight. i want to start by saying that i like and respect angela alsobrooks. we got a chance to work together while i was governor, where, which the great deal together for prince george county and she's got a great

life story. i just happen to believe that right now, the reason i'm stepping up to run is not to run against her or to try to defeat her. the reason i decided to run for governor, run for senate, the reason i ran for governor's because i was frustrated with all the taxes and the unaffordable he. i decided to step up to run for senate because i had never been more concerned about the direction of our country. what we see today is nothing but divisiveness and dysfunction in washington where nothing ever seems to get done. our country is being torn apart by extreme voices on both sides. we are not going to solve the terrible problems facing country with more partisanship and one more partyline vote or just continuing to do the same thing we've always done. the only way we are going to make a difference is if we can find strong independent leaders who are willing to stand up to both parties and try to bring about commonsense bipartisan solutions which is exactly what

i delivered for 8 years as governor. >> you been campaigning against governor hogan by singling out his party affiliation almost solely more than anything else. is his major disqualification for this office simply that he is a member of the republican party? >> the stakes of this election cannot be any higher. >> a woman's right to choose is on the ballot. what we know is the former governor is a person who vetoed an important abortion chair legislation and also vetoed important legislation that would have created a simple ban on ghost guns and would have disallowed long guns and created awaiting period. the republican party has declared war on women's reproductive freedom. we recognize this party is chaos and division led by donald trump, is one that

cannot lead our country and also has severe consequences for marylanders. former governor hogan accepted an invitation by mitch mcconnell to run in this race because they want to give republicans a majority in the senate. doing so will control supreme court justice nominations and also control cabinet appointments for president kamala harris and i do not believe having a majority controlled by republicans is in the best interest of the state of the country. newseum >> moderator: you will hear a lot about that. >> hogan: just trying to focus on nothing but party is not what i'm going to do. you will hear nothing but red versus blue. i care a lot more about the red, white and blue. i've been the leading voice in my party standing up to some of the things you are talking about. everything you just said your entire campaign is based on multiple things that are not true. i will support and sponsor codifying row. i've said that from the beginning.

when i was governor, when i ran for governor i promised to support women's access to abortion and i delivered on that promise for 8 years. the bill you are referring to was about protecting women because it was rolling back and making it less safe for women to get access to abortion, allowing not medical professionals and for you to lie about something as important as this issue is insulting. >> moderator: you have 30 seconds to respond to that. >> alsobrooks: i worked on getting $400 million to invest in prince george's county causing the former governor to call me the best county executive he had never known that his father was a county executive and i was the best he had ever known. the thing we do know is it's an unrefuted fact the former governor vetoed abortion care legislation and refused to release the findings to train abortion care providers and donald from deserved credit for his supreme court justices after they overturned row.

>> moderator: i will use my discretion, a lot of tv ads that talk about your independence and that you will be a political independent are paid for by the republican party. can you really, can voters believe you'll be an independent if the republicans are paying for your tv advertising? >> hogan: the voters of maryland nomad by proven track record of standing up to donald trump, to mitch mcconnell and the republican party. i probably stood up more than anybody in america. you know i have been on your show multiple times. on one of the harshest critics. people know that i was a bipartisan governor who got things done by working with a 70% democratic legislature and we accomplished a lot by reaching across the aisle. i'm not a amaba donald trump republican. >> moderator: is there anything democrat agenda you will fight against? >> alsobrooks: i support the

democratic agenda to codify and federal law a woman's right to choose. i support banning assault weapons which i support middle-class tax cuts. i support the democratic agenda but let me say this i stood up to my party. when president biden looked like he was waffling on the fbi i marched right in there and fought against him, tim kane and mark warner to get the fbi headquarters located in maryland and i won. >> along these lines of your criticism of donald trump, given donald trump's vowed to seek retribution if he wins, could your relationship with him end of hurting maryland? >> hogan: i think what we need desperately in washington are people that are willing and have the courage to put country over party and put people over politics and stand up to the leaders of their party. i don't think there's anyone in america who has done that more than me and i've never been

afraid and i never will be and never backed down. on one of the only ones in my party who can say that. i don't think we are going to fix anything by talking about how we will jam things through, everything has to be republican or democrat. i am down the road from washington, was able to get a lot done by doing the opposite. we set an example for what needs to happen in washington by working together and i was happy to work with county executive alsobrooks. after she became county executive we continued to work together. i built a new cancer center, hospital in prince george as part of my cancer moonshot initiative, we funded the blue line core door. worked on both sides of the aisle. >> alsobrooks: we made record investments in prince george's county but if he wanted to be an independent he should have run as one. he did not opt to do that, he opted to accept the request to

come in. mitch mcconnell bragged about his ability to recruit the former governor because he believed he was given the majority in the republicans which has huge consequences. the fact is i believe the governor when he says he would like to vote with row but the fact is if the republicans have a majority in the senate there will be no vote on a row. we've seen it with the republicans who refuse to allow barack obama his vote on merrick garland. they also will hand over gun laws to the nra. no matter what governor hogan says today he would empower a caucus of people who will take our country backwards putting lindsey graham over the judiciary committee, putting ted cruz over the science committee, who is a science and climate denier, he would empower caucus that is against our values. >> hogan: one voice can make a difference. we don't need more rubberstamps for a party. we need people who are willing to stand up and work with both

parties or criticized both parties when they are wrong. i was governor through three presidents, worked with obama and trump and biden and when i disagreed i strongly said i disagree. i stood up to my party and i will stand up to either party. i think we need mavericks in washington who will not just do what the party bosses tell them. >> mr. hogan and his allies have attacked you for claiming tax credits you are ineligible to receive including one meant for seniors. your opponents argue those tax credits make you untrustworthy for maryland voters. what is your response? >> thank you for asking the question and giving me a chance to clear it up. i always paid my taxes. she needed to leave her house i took over her mortgage, i paid her mortgage until i sold the house six years ago and never knew about the tax credit because i never applied for one. when i learned about it i

reached out to the dc government and paid back the amount of that tax credit and working to pay off the interest but i thank you so much for asking that question. >> a response? why should it matter to voters? >> hogan: i am not sure it should matter. i think the county executive alsobrooks said she didn't apply for the tax credit. she said she paid off her grandmother's mortgage. she also took out her own mortgages and swore and attested that it would be her primary residence which it wasn't. she did get a tax break meant for low income seniors and she is not a low income senior and it was a rental property, not her personal residence. i don't know people should make a decision based on that. she should have the opportunity to explain herself. >> moderator: is an all payback? you are working to pay back. >> alsobrooks: i paid back the amount of the tax credit.

i never applied for the tax credit. and never notified i had the tax credit. when i learned about it i paid back the amount of the tax credit and working to pay off the interest. >> 89% of marylanders are concerned about inflation. 3-part question on this, past, present, future, who gets the blame for the wave of inflation we had. who gets credit for bringing down inflation and how to prevent this from happening again? >> affordability inflation is a huge problem and buys i'm on the campaign trail talking to people every day it's the number one issue i hear about, the cost of groceries, the cost of housing, single mom trying to put groceries on the table. a young couple trying to buy their first home that's priced out of reach, inflation is out of control and there's plenty of blame to go around, this is when the republicans and

democrats can both take blame for because they both ran up the debt and continue to cause these problems. i'm not sure while you say it has come down, the average person doesn't feel like it has. it is what i ran for governor on. i was so frustrated things weren't affordable and my focus was on that. i cut taxes by $4.7 billion for hard-working marylanders, for retirees, we fought for 8 used to automate retirement taxes. my opponent wants to raise taxes on social security which won't make things more affordable. >> moderator: you have a minute. >> alsobrooks: i also have heard from so many marylanders, as a daughter of a receptionist and car salesman i understand how the cost of groceries that have gone up 25% since the pandemic affect everyday families and what we understand is huge corporations receiving

record profits right now are doing so and paying fewer taxes than average hard-working citizens. i attribute that to the rising cost and we know there's lack of competition. we are going to have to make sure we are holding corporations accountable, causing them to pay their fair share of taxes. i will cut taxes for the middle class and i don't propose raising taxes on anyone who earns under $400,000, the truth of the matter is we have to save social security. for people like my aging parents social security's lifeline. by 2035 it is due to run out of money and raising the for those earning $400,000 to save social security will be important. >> moderator: 30 seconds. up to 20 one this is my primary focus. it's why i ran for governor, what i focused on for 8 years and we had more success than anyone in america. we took a terrible economy that was 49th of 50 states, we had 5. one billion dollars deficit and turned it into a surplus and we made life more affordable for

average hard-working folks by cutting tools, cutting 350 fees and cutting taxes 8 years in a row. >> moderator: deborah has the next question. >> you are running for the seat long held by senator ben cardin. a staunch supporter of israel who presided over benjamin netanyahu's address to a joint session of congress. senator chris van holland refused to attend the speech and joined seven other senators and asking president biden to use all levers to pressure israel over gaza. when it comes to israel and the one-year-old war, are you a cardin democrat or a van holland democrat? >> alsobrooks: neither. i'm angela alsobrooks. i will represent myself in the senate. i'm fortunate to have the support of senator van holland and senator cardin and we have

tremendous delegation. i work i worked to this over the years, when it comes to this issue i will be angela alsobrooks and tell you what i believe. we recognize the horrific attack that occurred in israel on october 7th and they will get hostages, make sure they get aid into gaza for the palestinians, we have to get to a 2 state solution. self-determination for the palestinian and gaza. it's important our multilateral relationship with uae, jordan is necessary for us for long-term stability, and support its right to defend itself. >> hogan: i will be a champion

for israel like ben cardin rather than trying to equivocate or do both sides. to follow chris van holland who's the most anti-israel member of the united states senate. i disagree with that, to demand a cease-fire, we celebrated the tremendous loss of life. we remember families and hostages, people have to be counted. and israel is the most important ally, and we can't walk down the middle on this issue. no question we have to back israel. >> with prime minister

netanyahu, do you believe he's an obstacle for peace? >> alsobrooks: i support the us/israeli relationship. i've been clear on my position and israel's right to defend itself. he is ashamed of governor hogan and how he publicized this issue, and they do not respect alliances including nato. i support our alliances and both israel and ukraine. >> moderator: when it comes to tensions between taiwan and china, even if it means putting american boots on the ground?

>> it is important for us to stand up to our enemies, i believe in peace through strength. and dealing with ukraine and taiwan. and and mitch mcconnell. to secure the border and provide funding for taiwan and ukraine, for all of those things. and and we have allies who trust us and enemies who fear us.

>> moderator: if china wants to take it over to help fight side-by-side with taiwan. >> hogan: china threatening taiwan is something to be concerned about. i hope it doesn't get to that point. >> moderator: you have a question on taiwan? >> alsobrooks: to put us men and women on the ground, the conflict, his party does not believe in these alliances. they wanted to back out of nato. they refused to give ukraine the help they need, i believe, we do not stand up for vladimir putin who is a dictator who invaded ukraine, china will invade taiwan. the smartest thing is to shore

up our alliances through nato and multilateral relationships to act as a deterrent for china and they see what the united states does with respect to ukraine, to decide whether to get into taiwan. letter putin is not done. he will continue to go across eastern europe, poland will be next so these relationships across the country will be important and the republican party does not agree with this. they would let ukraine fail. >> moderator: would you increase support for ukraine, keep it as is or is there a point you decrease it? >> alsobrooks: i believe in the support for ukraine. i agree with funding ukraine. they've never come to the united states to say put men and women on the ground, they just want the tools to defend themselves and we out to continue to make sure that as an ally of the united states we support them in defeating vladimir putin because he's not done yet and he sent a horrible signal across the world and

republicans not supporting ukraine will let them fail. >> moderator: would you go as far as supporting ukraine's membership to nato? >> hogan: here we go with the republican democrat thing which i criticized democrats and republicans who wouldn't support israel and ukraine and stand up for our allies. there are plenty of people that are isolationists in both parties and neither of them has a lot going to make america safe and keep us as a leader of the free world but on ukraine, i was one of the first, we said before, i sent it from the state of maryland. i said from the beginning that we needed to be stronger and support those allies. we got to bring a end to this conflict, we will be putting boots on the ground if we don't stop putin now because we will have to defend a nato country. >> moderator: would you support ukraine into nato?

>> hogan: i would support it. >> alsobrooks: i think it should be explored. >> for a number of influential democrats talking about expanding the supreme court from nine justices to 13 and the idea if a democratic president could appoint four new justices there would be a majority of democratic appointees on the court. is that something you would support? >> alsobrooks: i am concerned about the supreme court. they no longer represent the will of the people. a couple things happened, i do support reforms for the supreme court. one of them would be to have term limits. i also agree with expanding the supreme court. i think we have to do something to reform the supreme court. looking at the decisions they made from overturning roe versus wade to their ethical problems in the supreme court and this is another place where me and mr.

hogan disagree because the supreme court is awful. he said he thought donald trump deserved credit for his appointments to the supreme court and called supreme court justices who he had appointed incredible. they are out of line with the will of the american people. whoever controls the senate will control appointing supreme court justices when we are at odds. they, the supreme court needs to be reformed. >> moderator: i didn't hear yes or no on packing the court. >> alsobrooks: i agree with increasing the number of justices or term limits. >> moderator: on the trump nominees to the court in particular, how would you have voted. brett kavanaugh got for rule. >> moderator: finisher question.

>> that was a question. >> hogan: if there's one thing we should not be politicizing, it's the supreme court and yet it has been publicized by both sides. trying to change the rules on a partyline vote is not the right way to go. i probably have more experience than most people in the senate. i appointed 190 judges including six of seven members of the supreme court and every single one of them, most inclusive appointments, unanimously confirmed by republicans and democrats camming to get one vote and most sides trying to change the rules, and find the most qualified judges regardless of what party they were and that is if you can't vote for a democratic judge or republican judge.

>> moderator: it passed with one vote. what would your vote have been? >> hogan: i said there should be a full and open hearing when they tried to jam through the barrett nomination. i don't know how it would vote. >> alsobrooks: he thought they were incredible, great supreme court justice nominees, these were his words. and the supreme court justices that he nominated. i would not have supported those supreme court justices who overturned roe and the bump stock decision. and decided the chevron decision that will hurt our climate they were also supreme court justices.

>> you vetoed legislation that would have trained more abortion providers and now you say you support row. >> the entire campaign is based on lies. i said this earlier. i have been against, the first i got in the race, she said i would be the deciding vote for an abortion ban which i've been against since 1992. i promise to provide access to abortion that will do nothing to change law. that is why delivered for 8 years. 5 or 6 years ago i said it was the correct decision. and when i got to the senate the first vote, the first bill i will sponsor will codify row. it's completely false. back to the thing about the

incredible justices and very critical of donald trump. the decision that just came out not discriminating against jewish students when it came to scholarships to go to private schools, i thought that was an incredible decision. >> alsobrooks: i believe that he disagrees with donald trump, he does disagree with his policies and this issue is one that is personal to me. as mother of of a 19-year-old daughter shop she is facing a world fueled by her mother and grandmother. this is very important. the fact of the matter is when the former governor had an opportunity to stand up for the people of maryland he didn't, he vetoed abortion care legislation, doubled down and refused to release funding to train abortion care providers. this is two years ago. when the supreme court overturned roe he went out and

complement did them. the problem is his party does not agree with him. the republican party has declared war on the reproductive freedoms of women. contraception, mitch mcconnell, ted cruz, rick scott, these are all people who would like an abortion ban. no matter what is in his heart, i believe he has had a change of heart. the fact of the matter is there will be no vote on roe on row if he gets a majority to the republicans in the senate. >> hogan: the bill was to change the law, instead of doctors and nurses, we would like nonlicensed professionals like midwives perform abortions. you can disagree with my position but can't lie about an and say i'm denying access. i thought it would roll back the clock, and others agree with me.

>> a separate question on abortion. the state legislation, the last two years there have been bill to protest or protect women's reproductive rights, access to safe abortion and privacy. county executive testified in favor of those bills but you've not. why? >> alsobrooks: i don't know which bill you are referencing but i support a woman's right to choose. i support and still support a woman's access to reproductive care and planned parenthood, and reproductive freedom for all because of my strong record on this issue and emily's list and planned parenthood who are aware of my uncontroverted

record on this issue and i continue to support women's reproductive freedom, contraception, abortion and ivf. >> hogan: we are never going to get anything done in washington if you attack people who agree with you. we agree on this issue. i funded planned parenthood and abortion every year i was governor and this is a very important issue, and to misrepresent the facts it is sad and unfortunate. i've been very clear, my record is clear, you and i agree on this issue and you say i have a different position than i have and my record as governor is clear. >> hogan: i believe the former governor. >> alsobrooks: he says he changed. if the republicans are in

control of the senate there will be no vote on row. we've seen this before when mitch mcconnell was -- they've been abundantly clear that they do not desire to codify row and would be seeking a national abortion -- if mitch mcconnell or ted cruz or lindsey graham, in won't happen. >> moderator: i will follow up on this. you believe vice president harris is in favor of getting rid of the filibuster to codify row. would you be in favor of that? >> alsobrooks: i would. we've seen the filibuster used as a tool to force civil rights legislation, we've seen the filibuster used in ways that have been very destructive. it has not been in the interest of the people. this issue is one that is very near and dear. not only to marylanders but people across the country. ..marylanders, back to people across our country who do not want -- like my daughter who is in georgia, to have to look out in the country and decide where

to live based on where she will have look at where she lives -- i will be working to codify the protection act. mr. hogan: i think it is a terrible idea, a lot of talk aboutes donald trump and mr. mcconnell but she and donald trump agree we should change the rules long-standing rules that require bipartisan cooperation and change the rules so you can jam things through on a partyline partisan vote. you've got to be careful what you wish for because you don't know who will be jamming things through. i like the idea of continuing to have to find people across the aisle, find that bipartisan compromise. i'll work with susan collins and lisa murkowski on my side to try to get the desperate do you think the 60 votes should the bar? >> making more partisan and allowing more things to be jammed through by one vote which she's beenme believing about mot of the evening, that she said she wants to do it for one thing

but then when the pendulum swings back every two years of four years everybody's going to cancel another thing. >> anything but lowering the threshold that concerns you? >> let me say this. i talked to senator cornyn about this issue andwh he said unfortunately in his expensive web is in the majority controls the agenda and he believes the filibuster has been used in such a m way we no longer have delivered body we need in the senate. and agrees many have been there agreed we've reached a point which become destructive and will have to really reform and abolish this filibuster in order to get back to deliberative body it should be. i agree we'll have to do something that we see in the progress has been thwarted. >> i'd like to talk you about gun violence.e. it was a month ago when maryland witnessed a fatal school shooting. the same week that was a school shooting in georgia that killed to make teachers and two students. gun gun violence is a leading

cause of death for children in the united states. do you believe the federal government has a role in reducing gun violence, especially when it comes to schools and the nation junk people? >> go ahead, mr. hogan. >> absolutely there is a role. i've been a supporter of commonsense gun legislation legislation. i'm for universal background check. i have always done everything possible to keep guns out of e hands of mentally ill and of the hands of criminals. i will support a bipartisan common sense assault weapons ban. ban. as governorr i signed a red flag law to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. i cited bump stock bill. built. when it was a school shooting in maryland in great mills in st. mary's county i passed the safe to learn act which requires school resource officers in a recent high school in maryland to try to keep people safe. i committed to sponsoring that exact same bill at the federal level. unfortunately my opponent pulled

school safety out of the schools and the bill kristol longer required. >> what is a commonsense assault weapons ban? >> i think i would support an assault weapons ban. this got to get they can bipartisan agreement for getting a bill passed. >> ms. alsobrooks, , awfulness. >> first of all let me correct something, misinformation he gave. i have not pulled in school resource officers out of the schools.s. the "washington post" just complement me in their endorsement of the same i fought against the effort to move those resource officers. the former governor copyrighted me two years m ago on my leadership on this issue public safety think i was a leader across the state. the fact the number one killer of our children is gun violence and that we as a country after nothing about it is shameful. there's an opportunity i would be in favor of eliminating assault weapons come also removing ghost guns from ourur streets and throughout his unfortunately the governor did not have the courage.

as governor. he in fact, vetoed legislation the with greater awaiting period for long guns and outright refused to sign a ban on ghost guns. he could help us on this issue by the instead kowtowed to become lobby and keycode abandon that would've just created that waiting period for long guns and did not -- >> this is all kind of half-truths and trying to confuse people. on ghost guns it did become law while i was government at a just didn't have bill signing ceremony with the legislature because, because i had legislation trying to actually do something about the people shooting people with guns. it was tougher mandatory sentences for repeat by the defenders of people commit a film with a gun. we have the toughest gun legislation in america and yet it's not stopping 100% increase in murders of places like prince george's county. we got to take the shooters off the street. theho long gun built without a rifle with people know what the baltimore city had been, there

were not shooting people with hunting rifles. it was illegal handguns and ghost guns which i was supportive of. >> a quick follow-up for both of you. the george floyd justice and policing act would restrict chokehold and no-knock warrant. if elected mr. hogan would you help past the george floyd policing act? >> i have to look at with the act says. i can tell youe i'm concerned about and i probably spoke out about this when anyone in america. when the defund the policeman been stored i was the loudest critic against it. it was saying you're going to improve public safety by defining the police, like saying you will improve education by defining the schools. it was absurd and ridiculous. i passed the first bill in america a refund the police initiative with a 50% increase in state aid to local police of the get high or more offices, so they could train better, teach de-escalation techniques. my opponent has cut the prince george county please come down 300 officerss and doing 12 hour

shift and crimes out of control, 500% increase in carjackings. >> on the george floyd police action to support? >> i would. let me cracks of the new set. the fact of the matter is i not onlyly support law enforcement i was law enforcement. the chief law enforcement officer in prince george's county, oversaw 50% point of crime. i increase police funding by 23% and when he talked about the ghost guns he said it did pass but it's like so much of his record. i because with such a strong democratic legislature thank god for them. they had to block so much of what he wanted to be due and again he's not going to annapolis. he's going to washington and will not have the same support we had we could've got anything done if we didn't have it democratic legislature. >> i want to turn to the issue of immigration. straightforward you, ms. alsobrooks start with you. should prince prince geoy cremate a century since berquist it's not aor sanctuary city.

as county executive i can create a policy that said violent offenders we cooperate with the federal government to make sure we notify them when we release violent offenders. i am also the person we think aboutt this issue who stood in courtrooms andof prosecuted gang members who were in ms-13. i've been consistent with this issue where it's been a concern. i've cooperate with the federal government and i know the former governor lied on the record about this. >> how would you describe? is it something the council did, they didn't want local law enforcement cooperating on t everything? >> they did not. i changed the policy to ensure when we released people who were accused of gang activity or violent, that we notified the federal government. >> you have one minute. >> first of all with respect to crime in general, i have the endorsement of unanimous endorsement of the maryland fop and of every single law enforcement organization in the state because they don't think you did such a good job on

crime. prince george's county police officers are the ones complaining about how things have gotten out of control. look, on ice detainers it's not true. you're the largest jurisdiction in maryland that refuses to work with federal law enforcement. you will not notify them when ice requested a detainer for a violent gang members you do not cooperate. that's the fact. even westmore said your policy is breaking federal law. >> thirty c seconds. actually can it'ss not true what he said but not cooperate with the federal government, just a lie. it is. i change the policy. for the more i am the only person on this stage stood flat-footed in the courtroom and a prosecuted and convicted murderers, rapists and gang members, , and it did so with te police department. i did so with law enforcement. in fact, i was law enforcement. together the partnership we created helpless to be effective and they're doing a tremendous job right now in prince george's county where the have seen lower crime in every category except

one where we are up 1. expert one minute to answer this simple question. would you vote to legalize marijuana on a federal level? >> yeah, i was for medical marijuana but i never really considered legalizing recreational marijuana on a national basis. i think many states have already done it, including maryland, but we had not seen the full impact of that yet. some and law enforcement are concerned that we have a lot of deaths for drunk driving. i think we have to make similar advances before we take a step like that. chuck: so you are not ready to legalize on a federal level? mr. hogan: not at all. ms. alsobrooks: the people of maryland have spoken on this issue and legalize it here. i would support it on a federal level. chuck: you had some hesitation at first. ms. alsobrooks: the hesitation is i think it is an awful idea to have children, i'm deeply concerned about the impact of

marijuana on children, so i've always said, whenever adults use , recreationally or otherwise, is for adults to make a decision, but i think we ought to be protective of our children in the same way that we have been with alcohol and other things. we've watched our children suffer, and i think we should be really cautious and be concerned about our children having access to marijuana and other substances. chuck: this next question, one minute for both of you, should federal government workers still be allowed to work from a one or two days a week, or is it time that they return to the office five days a week? ms. alsobrooks: i support having our federal workers be able to work from home once or twice a week. by the way, i'm the granddaughter is a federal worker who worked very hard to get herself in the federal government. she was a housekeeper, taught herself to type on her refrigerator so she could get that federal job. our federal workers do a tremendous job. we know that if republicans gain

control, if they put forward project 2025, which anticipates they would eviscerate the federal workforce, would politicize it, would harm our federal workers, including all 130,000 federal workers who live in the state of maryland, but i will be standing up for our federal workers, which is what i have the endorsement of the afp, the federal government employees union, and i will make sure we are defending and protecting their rights. chuck: mr. hogan, in question. mr. hogan: with respect to 2025 -- project 2025 come on the leading republican voice against that. i wrote an opinion in "the washington post," and i called out all the crazy things they were trying to do. that is the beauty of having someone in the party being willing to stand up to their leaders. i'm not sure when you've ever stood up to party leaders, but i've done it when it was hard, and i've done it over and over again, and i will continue to. i agree, we have the largest

concentration of federal employees, and for them to try to politicize the federal government was just absurd and ridiculous, which is why i was so strong in voicing my opposition bid with respect to getting workers back to work, certainly there are some things that can be done remotely. it has been a disaster for the washington metropolitan area when we have empty buildings everywhere, restaurants close, because very few people are getting back to work. when i was governor, i required people to get back to work, because you got to public service and interacting with folks and a lot of jobs if you are not there. other things you can do home. chuck: would washington, d.c. gun town economy be a factor whether -- downtown economy be a factor whether workers return to work? to the office? ms. alsobrooks: it is interesting to get the governor sadie criticized the party, -- say he criticized the party. when mitch mcconnell called him, he put the jersey on, says he

disagrees with all of these various aspects of it, and the reality is, again, his mere election would empower the people whose policies who says -- who he says he disagrees with so strongly. blasting president kamala harris they had a majority. chuck: next question, i will start with you, mr. hogan. on the issue of transportation, as governor, you brought some transportation projects involve more, the baltimore's redline. there's been the purple line in the d.c. metro area. how would you handle finding of maryland's transportation objects as senator? would you be a champion of getting more funding? mr. hogan: i'm proud of my record on infrastructure. when i ran for governor, we had crumbling roads and bridges, no money had been invested. that's one of the reasons i got elected, because i promised to do something about that. we move forward on nearly every transportation project across the state, resurfaced almost 90%

of the state highway system. no governor has invested more in transit or inroads than when i was governor. when i was chairman of the national governors association, i got all 50 governors to agree on an infrastructure, and that became part of the bipartisan interceptor bill, which i strongly supported. i brought senators and congressmen together to get it done, and when installed, i pushed republicans and democrats to get the bipartisan infrastructure bill done. republicans only wanted to do roads and bridges. democrats wanted to add $4 trillion of social spending, and we reach an agreement and helped get that deal done, which i think was good for america. ms. alsobrooks: the former governor did something so shameful. we know the number one issue because of state's economic opportunity, and having the opportunity to invest in the redline that would have created not only attracted jobs and opportunities to baltimore but would have allowed people to have access to these opportunities, and he did something of governor in history

has ever done in maryland, returned $900 million to the federal government to aspen to redistribute it and send it to other states. this not only crushed that opportunity, but it was unprecedented. furthermore, what we know is that he was not -- i think we need someone who can treat our whole state can i work, conversely, to draw the fbi headquarters to maryland, brain 7500 jobs here, cybersecurity and technology, i drew 100 million dollars near the new carrollton metro station, and i even worked to attract $400 million to the blue line to create jobs and opportunities. that is what i would do as a senator, not send money back to the federal government. i will be fighting for every part of our state to attract every single dollar we can to the state of maryland. mr. hogan: well, i ran for governor promising not to do the redline. "the washington post" editorial boards that it never made any transportation or economic sense. most people in baltimore did not

support it. it was a $7 billion project. it was not going to accomplish much of anything. and we had $900 million. nobody in our transportation fund wanted to move forward on it. what we need to move forward on now is fixing the key bridge, the howard street tunnel, fixing the traffic relief plan that was just killed because the transportation trust fund has been drained and there's no money to build any project. chuck: we have technically come to the end. one final question for you, mr. hogan, i know you said you wrote in ronald reagan's name, that you've already voted. if you lived in a state where it is up for grabs -- you said the police did not matter in your state --would you have still voted the same way? mr. hogan: i've never voted for someone i don't believe in. there are a an awful lot of people in america they don't feel like these two folks that are at the top of most tickets are the best people to lead america. that's why we have the ability

to write in and take whatever decision you make. i don't plan on moving out of maryland, so i will not speculate on what i would do if i were someone else. ms. alsobrooks: i think the decision not to vote in a presidential election for a senator is a disqualifier. this job requires votes, tough boats can if you have to make a decision, and for a person who says he can see a bipartisan way forward but was unable to do the most bipartisan thing ever in an election year he says he despises their nominee but cannot bring himself to even vote for vice president harris, and in fact, has a chance to vote in three different elections, rather than stand up, do that right thing, though for a democrat, he voted for a deceased individual and that he will do so a good this election. i think it is instructive of the way he would operate as a senator, unable to make tough calls and to go on to do what he declares is bipartisan. this is the most bipartisan thing you can do. chuck: here's the toughest call

i will make you both make. ravens or commanders? ms. alsobrooks: commanders. mr. hogan: [laughter] ravens. chuck: we guessed right. ms. alsobrooks: thank you to everyone watching. it has been a great joy for me to have represented our state for the last 27 years that i've been proud to fight for our families on every front. fighting to keep our communities safe, fighting to go economic opportunity, fighting to ensure we are caring for every part of our community, providing health care. i built mental health facilities, build a cancer center, broke ground on 18 schools and build 10. i have been fighting every single day to preserve not only our freedom but economic opportunity for every member of our family in maryland. i will do that, making sure we are moving forward, and i will support president kamala harris, making sure that she has the majority that she needs in the senate, so that she can get her

agenda across and that she can take our country forward, that we can come up together, the value we share, honor human rights, democracy, freedom, integrity, decency, these are what i believe in, and it is what i will fight for every day. thank you so much. chuck: thank you. mr. hogan? mr. hogan: thank you all again, thank you for watching tonight. as i said at the beginning, we are going to hear a lot about democrat versus republican, red versus blue, but all i really care about is the red, white and blue and blue, and i think that sending more partisan politicians, making washington more partisan and mortified it is not going to help. the country is way off track. i'm completely fed up with politics as usual. if you want to change things in washington, you will not change things by doing the exact same things you always do. i have a proven track record of standing up and bringing people together, having the courage to stand up to the former president, to the current

president, and i will do it to the future president and to republicans or democrats. i'm trying to put people over politics and country over party, and i'm asking the voters of maryland to be willing to do the same bank, and i'm asking for their vote. chuck: >> thank you both. thank thank you very much. that concludes tonight debate. we like to thank the candidates to participate and maryland publicub television. this truth extruder for hosting us. thanks to our panelists tracy wilson, deborah and jeff, for all my colleagues here at nbc news, wbal, i'm chuck todd. good night. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> today repubcan nominee and former president donald trump sits down f an intervi wh the economic club of chicago to address business community leaders and members. cohosted by bloomberg news watch

the discussion live starting at 12 p.m. eastern on-span, c-span now our free mobile app and online at c-span.org. >> tonight texas senator ted cruz and his demoat challenger taxes representative calln already face off in a debate to represent texas inhe u.s. senate. posted by debbie faa tv in dallas you can watch the debate live atight eastern on c-span2. c-span now free mobe app and online at c-span.org. >> as the 2024 presidential campaign continues american history tv presents its series this dork presidential election. learn about the pivotal issues of different eras come , , t made these elections historic and explore their lasting impact

on the nation. this saturday's election of 1960. >> and for those millions of americans who are still denied equality of rights and opportunity, i say there shall be the greatest project in human rights in today's of lincoln c100 ago hundred years ago. >> we stand today on the edge of a new frontier, the frontier of the 1960s, the frontier of unknown opportunities and peril, the frontier of unfilled hope and unfilled threat. >> in a close and controversial election democratic senator john kerry defeated incumbent republican vice president richard nixon. historical presidential elections saturdays at 7 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span2. >> camping 24 for coverage now. journalists from bloomberg news,

the "wall street journal" and cnn talk about their experiences covering the upcoming election. from georgetown university this is an hour. >> okay. hi. so for those of you i've had the pleasure to meet before, i'm rebecca sinderbrand. i'm the director of the journalism program here at cochin university and a recovering political journalist. this is actually the first campaign cycle since the clinton administration that if i myself not covering the campaign in the home stretch in this time of year. but there is no place i would rather be right now that you're on the hilltop with the next generation of political journalists, and here for this fantastic conversation here

today. i am so grateful, too, the george kent entertainment and media alliance and to you politics for partnering with us on this fantastic conversation. all of us believe that giving students access to the individuals, people, the places that make our world function is the most important element, the best way to learn. and thank all of you especially alumni who helped to make that happen with your support and your time and resources. my first campaign as a professional journalist was bush-gore back in 2000, and my most recent campaign i last campaign was biden trump. i thought i'd seen pretty much every campaign scenario imaginable but this year has been a new one. i could not imagine this one. and so thanks so much to our fantastic panel. we're going to introduce in a moment, for taking a quick break from the nonstop new cycle to give us their insider big

picture view of what's happening during this campaign cycle. thanks so much again to gema for helping make that happen. thanks to all of you for joining us here today. so with that to introduce better voices were on stage i'm going to hand off to one of the political journalist of the future who would like to take the job at some of the people on this panel, andrea smith, would you please introduce our fantastic panel? >> definitely. [applause] hi, everyone. i'm andrea smith, a missing and the college and minoring in journalism. i'm also very involved with geopolitics. we are so thrilled to have these journalists here on the hilltop to discuss this crazy election cycle. so without further ado to introduce these journalists, starting with nia-malika henderson. she is a politics and policy

columnist for bloomberg opinion, a former senior political reporter for cnn and the "washington post." she has covered politics in campaigns for more than two decades. reporting presidential candidates ranging from barack obama and bernie sanders to ben carson and donald trump for news organizations including newsday, the "washington post" and cnn. she was a geopolitics fellow in the fall of 2023, so some of you may recognize her from that and that been going to her discussion groups last year. vivian salama is "wall street journal" reporter covering national politics with a focus on the 2024 presidential campaign. since moving to washington in 2016 she has covered the white house and national security for the journal, for cnn, nbc news

and "the associated press" with a focus on foreign policy, breaking a number of major stories involving the trump white house, including details on the administration's uncommercial travel ban and the former presidents interest in buying greenland. a former foreign correspondent, she has reported for more than 80 countries and five continents over the past two decades. and is a graduate of the georgetown university law school. and lastly, brian stelter is a chief media analyst for cnn worldwide and the lead author of the reliable sources newsletter. he is the host of vanity fairs weekly podcast inside the high,, and the author of three books, most recently on network of lies which examined dominions defamation case against fox news. he was previously a meaty reporter for the "new york times" and a longtime anchor of

cnn's reliable sources, , media analysis program. a recipient of the walter cronkite award of excellence in television, political journalism. he was also a geopolitics fellow in the fall of 2021. thank you so much for our amazing panel for making the time to share their insights with us today. >> thank you. thank you so much. thank you for the warm introduction. [applause]

how do you explain was happening to people what's happening around the world? >> a softball question to start. >> sometimes as people tried to explain america to me because it's a daunting at times. but i moved back in 2016 and was sort of thrown in midcycle to the trump clinton race and -- [inaudible] >> there we are. >> okay? all right. so i moved back midcycle in 2016 to cover and was thrown into covering the trump clinton race. one of the things that really stood out to me was some of the rhetoric that was in play in that election. my first take away was when did politics get to be so mean?

granted, there's been a lot of mudslinging throughout time. i just watch a great cnn documentary about 1960 and sort of the intense politics is going at the time come back in 68. i said that right, 1968. there was a lot of mudslinging going on then, too, it's how well it just seems a lot worse. you had a thin presumptive republican nominee who was saying things about the wife of one of the other candidates, calling her dogface among other insult and accusing his father of being involved in the assassination of jfk. he was saying quite a number of things about hillary clinton, his female opponent, the first woman to lead a major ticket. that was really the first thing that was eye-opening to me. i was coming out of war zones, just to be clear. this felt like like a hoste environment in a different way.

my last job overseas was as baghdad bureau chief for the ap, come from that just seemed almost like a natural transition because we seem hostile in a different way. and so speedy have you become desensitized to all of this nastiness, all this rhetoric pages later or are we over it? >> you know, sometimes there is a tendency to now that donald trump has been on the national stage for this long to kind of dismiss some of things he says as trump is just being trump. but there are things he says, especially web now another woman leading the ticket on the democratic side and a woman of color no less. there is a heightened awareness about some of the things he says as potentially being either sexist, misogynistic, whatever, a racist. that has been something that is campaign is very keenly aware of

as well, and they have been actively trying to work to keep him disciplined and rainy minute times, especially when poll numbers suggested that harris had closed that gap that he once enjoyed against biden. he was starting to get nervous and aggravated and we were saying it play out in public and the tendencies were starting to surface and that was around the time, particularly the national association of black journalists. he had visited 20 question when harris turned black. among other things. so his campaign which had been quite shockingly disciplined in this cycle really had to work to rein him in to prevent that because they were worried about alienating the key groups that you need to get over the edge this time, minorities, particularly blackman, hispanic men but also white women. that's where we are. >> to mention the story had already forgotten about, right? there such a tort. we all feel that flood of

information some of the real some of it not. how did you decide on a daily basis what to becoming and whatnot? how decide where to train your attention? >> while listen i'm not important anymore. i'm a colonists i can pretty much right if i want and write my opinion. i happen to be writing a couple stories planning on going to north carolina to see what's going on there with that race. can kamala harris actually turn the state in the way barack obama did in 2008? the harris theory of the case is that the country is tired of this, right? tired of the trump we seen since 201515. tired of a sort of racialized approach to campaigning and sort of the gendered attacks. it's not clear they will be right though, right? i think if you are trump you're probably the favorite right now. why is trump the favorite? because he has had ten years to

build a coalition and that's a coalition that i think in many ways is kind of stitched together around identity politics, around white grievance, around a kind of anti-immigrant sentiment, about the kind of anti-black sentiment, even though again he's able to do well with some black voters, particularly blackman. i think if you the harris campaign you are hoping there is a realignment of these demographics. that what you lose with black voters and latino voters, you gain with upper income college educated white voters who are much more tired of the rhetoric, much more likely to be offended by some of the things trump said. offended by january 6th, , are really concerned that character issues. that is their great hope but again they have 100 days essentially to stitch together

almost an entirely new collision. i don't think you'll be the biden coalition. it's not going to be the obama coalition is it so that is the real test. they have passed a lot of the test. they've raised something like $1 billion but can you stitched together and all new sort of racially diverse coalition in 100 days up against a guy who very well knows what he's doing with some of the racialized rhetoric, right? whether it's about what he said in the debate about haitians eating peoples pets, whether it's what he sang out about a to the hurricane victims in some of the states, basically saying to these white voters and in some instances black voters, too, that the federal government does not care about you. they care more about migrants and that is something that motivates voters. it's been such an idea that this is going to be an election won or lost on the economy.

donald trump doesn't seem like it's going to be won or lost on the economy. if you look at where his rhetoric is, look at where the ad spending is, it's a lot around his cultural issues, around transit issues, , around immigration and around crying. so i think in the end it will probably be based on those issues because those are motivating issues for folks on the right and then on the left i received the issues around abortion. that's where a lot of the ad spending is going, and then on this just a character issue as well as democracy. so that's what we're seeing it. i sort of get sick of people on tv using the old cliché from the clinton campaign from carbo, it's the economy, stupid. i don't think this is going to be campaign that's what a loss on the economy. i think it's been given all these other issues. >> you were saying we can look at advertising spend as which and what they're prioritizing. i love that everything for how

to cover campaigns. there's data sets, ways for us to look at and see what are the campaigns advertising. where are the traveling? what swing states are they swinging? can we tell him where the candidates are? what are the data sets and different point you look at when you're determining how to cover every? >> deathly the ad spending is good way. i did again. definitely ad spending is good way to determine what the priorities of the campaign are just give an example donald trump campaign and the gop in general is spending more, double in pennsylvania what itt is in the next highest state that it is prioritized and more than michigan and wisconsin combined. it shows you that pennsylvania is the place to win, and they are really pouring resources and their energy and their physical energy to going and rallying in pennsylvania. last week and we saw the former president return to butler,

pennsylvania, for the attempted assassination happened where he got nipped in the year with a bullet. he says 100,000 people were in attendance. of course we know he's a big fan of talking about his crowd sizes. i'm not sure it is quite the hike but it was a lot of people for sure. they're really into it and it was quite a show. i mean that's the thing about donald trump is he's not just going to showo up into a rally especially for this butler, pennsylvania, rally for he knew that would be a lot of media coverage. he had entertainers, and perform and opera singers. he just made into a show. that's because he wants to lure people and get them excited and that's how we kind of uses his sort of star power to motivate his base. you see that. arizona is another place where they are starting to pour their energy and resources into right now because early voting is starting there. you can see them shifting, i'm

going this weekend to arizona where trump is going to be holding a rally. >> do you enjoy that? fueled on the lot when you go in person? isrs it worth the travel? it must be grueling. >> it's worth to talk to the people at the rallies. trump's shtick is usually the same a lot of these rallies. especially since of incoming him since 16. believe it or not his routine hasn't changed all that much. the rallies, -- >> speeches are longer but of the same -- >> a little more rambling. i'm a graduate of these university. >> you're there, not for trumpet for trumpism. you're their children about the trump voter. >> absolute. there's a lot you can tell.ut it's not just about do you like donald trump? at his rows there's a chance there a big fan. they're not thee ones were necessarily going to tell me a lot about how that state is voting. i might state that they are to and talk to people who were not

at the rallies and i would be an interesting element of the reporting of what i try to do. what we typically like to do and especially of the "wall street journal" our politics team is a bit smaller than at the "new york times" and the "washington post" so we try to build a narrative around the rallies. it's not just trump at a rally and said xyz. because again is repetitive. unless he says something unique, unless you drop something that's a bit newsworthy, which he tends to do. every other week lately he's been declining a tax-free situation on someone, no tax on, we broke the store today, no tax, no double taxation on americans abroad. he's done no tax on seeing her citizens and tax on tips. >> on overtime, to. >> so he's been going about any tends to bury them in his rows. you get to keep your ears open. you can't falsify the rallies for sure. at the same time you you arg

to report the story around it. arizona i would go and i'll report on early voting. i'd go important fact he to this day continues to deny the fact that he lost the state of arizona despite audits and court cases that of proven the controvert those of the stories that are interesting. >> about that come when i was a fellow in the fall 2021 and trump was either a disgraced retired, failed politician, incited a a riot come went bao mar-a-lago, hung out, kind of hang out with his friends no one really perceived that he be back as the gop -- some people did. trump did but by and large three years ago there wasrg a jew, tucker carlson for example, said he's a retiree come right? rupert murdoch said we are going to make him a nonperson. that was effort within the gop as well to move on from the trump years. how did we get back to this? had he tell the story? in a minute or less of the last

three or four years since january 6th where we are back in ahe situation where you just said he's the favorite. >> i think trump had his people, and in so many ways, i studied cultural anthropology as an undergrad at duke university which is one of the finest institutions only second to georgetown. kidding. but he had his people and so they never left him. in so many ways and i don't guess in a disparaging way, but i think you have to use the word cold in so many ways to explain the fuel tv e and the loyalty -- cult -- at a delegation that trump, i call them followers. i don't call them supporters because that is thert kind of connection theys have with trum. >> i have a cult like

relationship with chipotle. >> right. exactly. >> but it is inappropriate to describe the situation. political journalists are sometimes afraid use language like that. >> i can i am a columnist so i can speak in ways that other reporters and corresponded can't. so i think when you understand that kind of relationship and that what trump says trickles down there is immediately to his base of supporters who are facing demographic shifts, who are facing economic challenges. there is a lot of upheaval, right? in american culture. jobs being shipped overseas. a i and the sorts of speeders women of color. >> exactly. so this come he is aware of that, right? this kind of formula around white identity politics, about essentially making white voters

feel white, reminded him of their whiteness by mentioning the other as as ain threat od over and over again. and listen, this -- >> white journalists are afraid to talk about that. >> listen, this is america, right? there's a husband and the sort of scapegoat for things going wrong as was playing that. listen, this has been a part of party politics for a while. it had just been for decades the republicans said were not going to play that come right? we're not going to play that game. bob dole kicking the races in the birchers out of the party. there with those kind of moments in the party and then donald trump comes along and he's playing these old tunes. in some ways kamala harris talks about in this way that these are tired tropes, these are stereotypes but they work, right? these are real sort of organizing and motivating ideas for a certain set of american voters. sometimes these are black voters

and sometimes these are brown voters who have their own idea of what it needs to be part of the mainstream. what does it mean to be an american. sometimes to be an american means you look down on black people. sometimes you're an immigrant and maybe you came here legally, sometimes the idea being american means you look down on the folks who may have come in a way. if you're donald trump have that sort of history of american discourse. but you also have social media and you have this sense of disconnect among so many voters. donald trump becomes their sort of messianic figure, and the sort of use that word messiah purposely. >> there are other republicans are more like j. d. vance republicans who want to just tear the wholele thing down. who are at the institution. tell us about being on the campaign with him recently because you had an interesting exchange when he asked the question. he holds these press conferences reporters get booed and wonder

what that is -- >> his rows, their actions campaign rallies. thehe difference between trials rallies and j. d. vance rows is fanciful smaller values he comes the enthusiasm to go out and see them is not a stroller. also because they wanted to questions from the needy. he starts with the local media and then moves onto the national media. it's a bit of, i mean for then they sit s as access and particularly at a a time where there's been so much criticism about the lack of access to vice president harris and a running mate tim walz, governor walz. they cannot go out above and beyond to have themselves accessible to the media. he does of this. he also chats off the record on the plate and you will come under the wing of the plane and chat on the record picky does quite a lot. at the rallies its bit again a shtick where he takes the questions and he's pretty patient with a local journalists for the most part. he takes the questions when

asked about local issues a lot of things having to do with housing prices, economic issues in general, little bit about migration issues. but then he takes a national reporters many of whom travel with him and immediately i mean at times by colleague from the "new york times" used tond be my colleague at the journalist who might toward introduce himself as as a new times reported theyo crowd started going boom, like it was baked into the whole thing. i then asked the question on this multi-day trip, of all things about the federal reserve cutting the interest rate. it is the most "wall street journal" question you can get, asked dale a a question as you could possibly ask. i asked -- >> your own question. >> it just had to be asked. but the way i phrased it because it was a same day as interest rates, can get your reaction quickly to the federal reserve cutting interest rates, particularly as it could provide some relief for many americans, and the crowd lost their minds

booing me. i mean, to the point that j. d. vance in stealth started to give up because he was not expecting that reaction from thet crowd. >> they booed why? because it is perceived as good news with the other team, democrat? >> suggested it was good news for thend other team. a couple people pulled me aside what i got off the stage, the people in rally like that's not true. it's i could happen. it's just make things worse. people feel very strongly about the other side but again if you're at his rows they are diehard. >> what's it like to be booed? did make you feel like pursuing another line of work? >> if i haden a penny for every time. no. you go a thick skin to an extent. especially all of us. full-time tv, where all tv people basically and so if that doesn't give you a thick skin where people are literally pick you apart physically among other things, everything you say speed i call this wrinkle my trump line. not just from trump.

>> i started laughing it was just, it was a lot of it, it was a show more than anything else. it also something to take note of. i wrote about it because again just this animosity towards the other side, thed fact they feel so wronged by president biden and by extension vice president harris is something to take note of it so is interesting. >> let's look at harris, and where were you when biden dropped out? i was at a water park. >> yeah. >> sunday afternoon. nobody had a heads up. >> i was househunting. yeah, i was househunting and they were going to could take my daughter by life and i to a playground and they got the call my editor and i had to leave my wife with my child, which happens a lot. >> over this -- we ran out of the water park.

>> i left my o daughter to come here and she was crying, you know? it was just what it means to be a working mom particularly around this campaign. harris has been something amazing in a very short period of time, which is to stitch back together biden coalition, which was framed, which was desponding, which wanted by and large a different candidate. she is do that speedy in retrospect it was inevitable that was going to happen. the voters were saying for years didn't think biden should run, or trump. >> they voted for biden in 2020 because he was an established person. they felt like he could beat donald trump. wasn't that there's a real biden coalition, right next a biden love affair in a way that was for obama and even hillary clinton, i think at a stronger base of support than biden did. and listen even if he is running the essentially promised his go to be a one-term president, sort

of bridge to the next generation. he said this at about one day and it the next generation people behind it including kamala harris. she has done something amazing which is to raise all this money and to tighten this thing in the polls. but listen, america has never even elected a black woman governor. america has only elected two black women to serve in the senate. sort of in the white-collar industry. very few people have had black women bosses, , right? i had a few of the "washington post." i have one now at the birth but that is a reality. it's a huge leap, right, that america's going to elect not just a woman president that african-american woman president. it's a big thing and we will see if it happens again. i mean, i think she, she calls herself the underdog and part of the reason she calls herself the underdog is because she is

trying to break this, to quote hillary clinton, this highest, hardest class ceiling. >> as much as we cover the policy positions and the speeches, it's important we cover the part you're describing, the , the psyche historical resonance of what it means for her to be running, the notion that many people have resistance to seeing a woman elected, the notion of the people are desperate to find listed happen. all of those, idol is the right word is emotion but there's so much caught up in that, it's beyond policy positions. >> i think that's right. so may g people in be have been like we are dash of where our plans? never what about the fact donald trump does have any detailed plans at all. but yeah, i mean i don't think speed is much more about the symbolism. >> it's all about feeling and emotion. >> who is america? what is america? who is america for?

>> it such an interesting plan an important plan because we talk about this and it's largely because a lot of us live here on the east coast and where little bit shielded from some of the realities elsewhere in the country, and this is something i'm grateful to be able to travel and kind of see other perspectives. you forget like a lot of times when you talk to even democrats in states across the country, and we talk about pete buttigieg as a potential future candidate. i still hear from people to this day in 2024 that america is not ready for art gay male presiden. it's shocking to me as someone who lives in washington, d.c., but those are the things you hear pixel race tends to come into the equation a lot when you talk about kamala harris and especially race in fact, she's the mail on top of that. it's something you have to open your -- she's female -- even you yourself don't perceive it that way or, but these are

discussions that are happening across the country. it's important to have awareness about it. >> were going to take audience questions and minute. let's talk brieflyha about what, talked up the water park. last weekend i was in a corn maze with my kids and i was texting with the trump w campain advisor andy harris campaign adviser at the same time. felt like i was was cheating on one side orn. the other but thas the point is you are in touch with both sometimes. what are your practical tips about what it's likend to be trying to know what's going to happen next, try to be head of these stories? any thoughts for aspiring journalists in the room? >> i think sort of be open to being surprised, right? if you watch cable news, we kind of get up there. i mean we are sorted paid to be -- wee know it all in this mattr and this is going to be a gaffe and voters want to know -- you know, and i'm not sure that's

the case. i remember back in, this was probably end like 2017 or something, i was in an uber. this is sort of the crochet, or talking to the uber driver and us asking her good you think is a a person who should go up against donald trump, who could beat donald trump she said joe biden. this was a black woman. she was on the sort of joe biden train way before the democrats were way before he was deciding to run. so oftenhe it's just regular fos who have a sense of things, who live a different life, who see things in a very different way than we do. we are very plugged in supposedly to the white house and democratic strategist and republican strategies. but oftentimes it's aat regular folks who have a sense of what the country needs come , ofe country is ready for, and what the country would do.

>> what about you? >> my job is i have a corporate card and a specific people all the time and by the drinks and get them talking. and so take advantage of that. if you join a news organization that usual corporate card to take them out, getting tipsy, get them talking. [laughing] >> all right. i'm going to play opera and come into the crowd in in the civc for questions. we do. you don't need me. so here's our opera. go first, writer in the second row. >> thank you all so much for joining us. i'm a sophomore here at the school of foreign service. granted i can member that many election cycles but one thing i feel has become more, over the past two years or so is this instantaneous reaction at a minute there's a fact check or tough question the response is not this is a journalist doing their job but that this is somehow a journalist conspiring against me. how does it impact your

reporting?fr do you think the stuff the media should do and can do to kind of combat this attitude that tough questions are so biased? >> particularly fact checking, right? this came up in the debate, the scene in debate. they did, in fact, check. that of course wouldn't have helped joe biden at all, but anyway, and then you saw in the kamala harris donald trump debate the was fact checking. the sort of trial half of things basically came up with all thise conspiracy theories. they were threatening the license of abc and is and david meurer biased, and the black woman was part of the same sorority so they there muse sort of conspiracy with kamala harris. and in the final debatest the j. d. vance with tim walz, the was like i think what attempt to fact check and they shall j. d. vance pushback. listen, i think at seen cnl

vail was fantastic, i don't know that the media is up for this time, even though we've been added in 2015 cover and donald trump and covering donald trump's lies. i think cnn grappled with his. remember this. jeff decided to fact check in the chiron. it would be something, a particular lie donald was telling about barack obama being the founder of isis or something. there was a chiron check that was a fact check comes running in that way. of course daniel got more airtime than anyone during the 2020 --- i'm not sure it helps the uninsured type checking doesn't actually ultimately advance the lie, right? today, on cnn, for instance, there was a troubled person talking about the fema response to the hurricane and, of course,

their life is that fema has been bled dry by these migrants and no money will go the actual victims of the hurricane. of course they were doing a fantastic job on fact checking the when you sort of elevate someone who is going to lie, is it a kind of equivalency in the mind of some viewers? it's unclear to me what the sort of effect is but i'm not sure that kind of fact checking that has been going on, whether it's in the pages of the "washington post" on air has really done anything or solved the problem of the lies that trump tells. >> i'll try to make the even messier. i don't think cnn viewers are unclear what the facts are necessarily, or even fox viewers. .. getting more airtime than anyone

during that cycle. i am not sure that it helps. i am not sure that fact checking does not ultimately advance the live. today on cnn for instance, t >> agree with you about the limits of fact checking, showing up with a knife to a gun fight clearly and we can tell millions of people prefer their feelings over facts. i used to think when it came to a hurricane at least, people would believe what they see in front of their eyes in the middle of the storm, but turns out, in the last week or so, even lies about a hurricane can gain traction, but i hold onto hope, maybe it's naive, most americans want to know what's true in the world and what's real and they don't want to be fooled all the time, call me naive. >> i think that access to a greater number of information, sources, let's call it information sources, not news sources, i think it's been a blessing and a curse.

you obviously want to diversify where you get your information from, but when you have too much and there isn't a level of professionalism involved in a lot of these places, it skews, what is and what isn't truthful. on top of it, because i cover the trump campaign, i kind of go back to him, often, one much-- part of his phenomena is that what he says is often taken as gospel and i call it the word of trump and you know, the other day was a perfect example, something minor where he just said, biden never called kemp, the governor of georgia after the hurricane, and this is something now that his base has started to parrot that, but it wasn't true. he did call and even kemp went out and said, there was an effort to get a hold of each other, but they talked and same with florida and going out and talking about the hurricane stuff. so immediately when he says it it's taken as truth, and incumbent upon us to then call

it out, but do people believe us, oftentimes it's a challenge to get people to believe us and we just have to keep on sticking to our guns and doing what we do. there's really no other answer at this point. >> it does raise the reality of the media limits of power where i wish it were different, but we should be realistic about the limits of journalism power to debunk narratives out there, especially in the world. and let's see questions, why don't you pick since you've got the microphone and take the pressure off me. >> thank you so much for coming, my name is caleb, i'm a senior in the school of -- it's late. i've seen discussions, social media and twitter journalists into quasi, a lot of their

journalists are producing their own contact and don't have organizations to stand in front of or behind and they don't have corporate cards, paying for flights to go to rally. how do you see that affecting the creation of pieces of journalism and the job of a journalist during a campaign especially when there's a lot of travel involved. >> i do -- i do think that, obviously, again, it's sort of going back to the level of professionalism. you've mentioned a great, great platform for a lot of people not just journalists, but good writers and have something to say and get the word out there and gives them greater access. i don't pretend to explain how these work, but they've been great and to kind of diversify the type of audience that they reach and they're great for that reason. but, yeah, for people who--

it could serve young journalists, as a level of professionalism. i was a free-lancer for a big chunk of my career, i did not have the corporate cards or access to security and all of that stuff and taking a risk in those situations and limited as far as what you can do. you're competing against journalists who work for news organizations and have that sort of army of resources behind them. it's challenging, but in this day and age with the internet and, you know, streaming and everything like that, you could still write well and you could still build source bases just by working the phones. you're in d.c., you could knock on, you know, members of congress love to talk. so go knock on the door of members of congress and get to know some of them, you know? you'd have access, i teach a graduate journalism class here at georgetown and i have assignment where i tell them go

to the hill to talk to members of congress or their staffers at least, if the members won't talk to you. so do you have access and there are low resources, low budget ways to still do good journalism and to do it for those platforms, build a couple of clips for yourself to shop around for bigger news organizations if that's what you want to do. >> and the reality is that news room are shrinking. i think after the campaign, after this election, i think we're all anticipating that they're going to be buyouts and layoffs in various news rooms. it's just a field that's shrinking and has been for decades and with ai, i'm sure that's only going to accelerate. you know, to the extent that sort of outside can crop up and different kinds of journalists who aren't as east coast elite

and upper echelons of american society, to the extent that there are other outlets and other journalists who could provide an alternative voice to what is the mainstream media, i think that's a good idea. because our news rooms and we all know this, they are overwhelmingly white, in some ways overwhelmingly male at the upper ranks of news rooms and then they are filled with people who went to fancy schools like georgetown and duke, it's just a fact. in that way, journalism can't accurately cover america, right? and in some ways that's why, 2016, you know, we got it wrong. in some ways we got 2022 wrong as well. we'll see how we do this go-round, but it is an industry that isn't nearly as diverse enough, socioeconomically, racially, and ideologically, religion, any of those things

and that's ideally will be something that actually changes. you know, you talk to people in the news room and we have been working on it, we've got more work to do. they've had more work to do for decades, right? and these news rooms are still not very diverse and not a real reflection of american society. >> next question, let's see where the mic heads over here. >> hi, thank you so much for being here today. my name is zelda, a sophomore minoring in journalism, on the topic of media, i was curious what your opinion is on candidates kind of coming out and campaigning on modern social media platforms like kamala harris now has a presence on tik tok and she was recently on the call her daddy podcast and obviously she's trying to tap into a new audience of potential young voters, but i was curious if

you think that this could be maybe more harmful to her legitimacy considering the reputation of these platforms and the controversy behind them and you know, what type of audience is watching these. >> and trump is doing it too, by the way. >> i loved him on the podcast, fragrant. trump did an hour and 20 minutes on the podcast, i thought it was hilarious. i thought harris' call call your daddy, i think old foggies are out of touch and the podcasters take it seriously when they interview the candidate and the reality it's never going to change, it's going to become more like this as media fragments, we're going to see more and more of the nontraditional interviews. journalists can whine about it, it's not going to change. >> part of it's personal, when you read a story, kamala harris

is only giving interviews to these folks and these are mostly friendly outlets. what the new york times is actually saying it, kamala harris hasn't given us an interview and we really want an interview from kamala harris. we don't care about her going on a podcast or even talking to 60 minutes, it's a serious outlet, but it's very personal to these and listen-- >> and is that true, is that true? >> hasn't given up an interview. yeah, i agree that's definitely a part of the dynamic. look, journalists will always say we wish we had more access and wish we could get more interviews. i don't think we can live in a podcast-- i think that trump should go on call her daddy, too. >> my name is matt. >> i'm a sophomore in college,

i have not declared a major, i want to go back, how do we get people to believe what politicians are saying, might not always be true or, how do we get people to trust journalists again? but my question is sort of, what do we say to people who go, yeah, well, donald trump might say a lot of lies, but i think he's better on the economy so i don't really care? or kamala harris, you know, or tim walz brought up in the vp debate how he got dates wrong in china, but he's running on the better ticket so i don't really care. how do we get through to people to say that the truth does matter and you should care because, you know, a lot of the times a lot of people are saying that, you know, it doesn't matter to them as much? >> it's a great question. it's a great question. you know, what i find mostly is their choices are limited and that's a big driving force for

why people are at this point saying, well, i guess this is what we got. i mean, it's as simple as that. you know, there are some people who are willing to dismiss just because they think there are other, you know, there's definitely-- i hear that a lot on the campaign trail, well, trump was better on the border, he's bet on the economy. we were living better under his presidency. yeah, he's kind of-- he says things that i don't really agree with or i don't, you know, i don't like, but ultimately my life was better and you do hear that. and you hear from the other side, i do not want another trump presidency so i'll take whatever they offer us. >> and isn't it also true, you can decide to know different versions of donald trump. meaning, there are the versions of donald trump and autocrat and imprison his political opponents and try to shut down

american news organizations if effected. a country that's far less democratic and there's a version of donald trump who is a blowhard, likes to talk too much, and wants everybody to like him and be his friend. you be opt into different versions of the donald trump and a lot of trump voters they opt into the blowhard guy and i worry-- >> i think-- i worry about that because i'm very concerned about the auto autocrat. >> i think a significant number of americans love every single thing that donald trump stands for. >> including the fascism. >> including the fascism and shutting down the -- and jailing the enemies. >> and we don't take these voters seriously enough. they like what donald trump stands for. like i do think that maga is

one of the most powerful political movements we've seen ap donald trump talks about that. the question if the anti-maga movement, which began, you know, the day that the election was called for donald trump, is that stronger? is this sort of hatred, what might be called hatred of donald trump stronger than what i think is real love and affinity of donald trump as a man, the methods he employs and what he wants to do to the country. there are significant numbers of americans who don't mind an autocracy as long as its their guy who is in it. >> i appreciate that check of reality. and five minutes of questions. >> i'd like to get your-- is this on? >> yes. >> i'd like your take on the strategy question for the kamala harris campaign. by way of background i've been

0 an on air political analyst, msnbc and elected to office six times and i'm concerned that she will go down the tubes. i've seen up close since hillary in 2016, a lot of voters who will not vote for a woman the and her response has been that's being divisive and that she's not being aggressive enough, james carville is saying that, she needs to be more aggressive. from a media standpoint how would you react if she becomes much more aggressive, much more, not just sitting there and taking it? because i fear that, in fact, even today on tv, there was a segment that said, here we are again, is it 2016 again. >> yeah, i think i might have been-- inside politics because, no,

listen, every democrat i talk to is really, really nervous about where the harris campaign is. is it too much on cruise control and they're not sure if it's just sort of psd from 2016 with hillary clinton or something they're seeing from the harris campaign, but, no, i think sort of the gender and the race issue, inextricably intertwined here, it's a real thing. if you're kamala harris, i think she's partly trying to lean into being tough, she was a law -- you know, she was basically a cop, she was a prosecutor, she has a gun, apparently it's a glock, anything about guns, but that sound like a pretty serious type of gun, but listen, i think over the next, what is it, 26 days i think you're going to see some change because i think there's a great

deal of worry about whether or not they're sort of sleepwalking to the same result and because of the same reasons, right, around the gender thing, around the race thing, and around this different demographic, is she hanging out too much with liz cheny, or realignment of republican, and i think she's doing it for different reasons. is she a scary black woman and with the squad, hanging out with liz cheney, how scary can i be if i'm hanging out with this white lady and i think's part of the strategy around that. to the extent that she might lose i think you can probably trace some of this back to donald trump, haitians, immigrants eating your pets, and then you fast forward to j.d. vance, right, talking about immigrants taking your

houses and then you fast forward a little bit more to this recent lie around immigrants taking fema funds and so, i think that's the territory that has worked for donald trump and that can really work again for him, particularly against a woman of color. (inaudible) >> you know, to some extent i think it's going to come down to this ground game. voter contacts, making sure that you're not taking the base voters for granted, that's the real fear. african-american voters, latino voters, low information voters which are different from those type of voters, and so that's what folks are talking about to me as a democratic strategist or worry that again, she's focusing so much on sort of the liz cheneys of the world and not enough on the traditional base of the democratic party. >> quick point to add, don't

underestimate civility either. the vp debate turned out to be very civilized, and very well-received by the public and so i would just say, i think harris kind of joined and said she's not going to stoop to that level and people would ask her about the comments, she would roll her eyes and say move on, same old trump and play book, move on. up until now that's been their strategy and i just say maybe it works. i don't know. >> and again, she's a black woman, right, and she has to be careful around the stereo type of being an angry black woman or a busting woman or anything around that. so she's held to a different standard because she's a woman and because she's a woman of color. >> so i hear fear versus joy, right? and i hear are people tired or are they not tired of the trump era, and those could be the two frame works.

and a quick question before we wrap up. when are you feeling it's safe to go on vacation, because we're going to have an auction and then -- we're going to have an election and then an aftermath. >> this is a real discussion in my household right now. >> is it. >> end of november, beginning of december, i don't know, i don't know. >> you're not sure yet. >> i think that's right. yeah, christmas, ideally in south carolina, hopefully i'll get to spend time in south carolina and hopefully it will be warm as well. but, yeah, i think no matter who wins, you know, if kamala harris wins, the sort of backlash to a black woman president will be massive as we saw with barack obama-- >> and the celebration and-- >> and no, i think that's right, i think that's right. there'll be dancing in the street and then there's be some i think shock among some communities as well and not in a good way and we'll see when

the campaign is called, but i think the reverberations of it, either way, positive and negative will be felt for quite some time. >> i'm looking for the positivity, even though we've talked about the exhausting nature of covering campaign and ultimately we have dream jobs. these are dream jobs to document history. >> and listen, i remain optimistic about america, about america future, certainly about the young folks who are here in this room. i say that, you know, as a black gay woman whose ancestors were enslaved, also a great country and we continue to make strides. >> it's an incredible story to be a part of it. thank you both very much. let me bring up one more speaker quickly, ann marie from the georgetown media alliance to close this out. >> thank you so much for coming today. impressive journalists spending time with us, and their time is

valuable and thank you for that. and an alliance of an association and we want you to get involved. want you to get involved and be a part of the community. the goal is to showcase alumni in the field and promote professional development. so i want to share three top ways to get involved. we have an externship in the summer, so, actually not summer, spring break, spring break, open to seniors from the undergrad, mba and law school. when you have an externship you get to spend spring break with alumni in new york or l.a. to learn about the field and get exposure, so please sign up. happy to answer any questions. the deadline is november, information on the website and also, you'll find interviews with alumni who have been through the externship program and see how they've benefitted, kind of got their start. second way to get involved, join a chapter, one in l.a., d.c., new york, undergraduates

chapter, no excuse, today, tomorrow, when you like, we're here to support you. and a newsletter and social media outlets programming like this, so really here to support you, to get that dream job that you're talking about and to support each other in this field. many talented alumni are just excelling in education -- entertainment and media, i'm in education and really, thank you for coming and let's get involved. join us at the reception, happy to answer any questions, thank you. >> awesome. >> thank you all for being here. thanks so much. [applause]. [inaudible conversations] >> today, republican nominee and former psident donald trump sits down for an interview with the economic

club of chicago to address business community leaders and members. co-hosted by bloomberg news watch the discussion live starting at 12 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile appnd online at c-span.org. later today, democratic vice-presidential candidate and governor, tim walz, speaks to voters at a campaign rally in pittsburgh, pennsylvania. our live coverage starts at 5 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org. >> with one of the tightest races for control of congress in modern political history, stay ahead with c-span's comprehensive coverage of key state debates. this fall, c-span brings you access to the top house, senate and governor debates from

across the country. debates from races that are shaping your state's future and the balance of power in washington. follow our campaign 2024 coverage from local to national debates anytime online at c-span.org/campaign, and be sure to watch tuesday, november 5th for live, real-time election night results. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics, powered by cable. ♪♪ >> attention, middle and high school students across america, it's time to make your voice heard. c-span's student cam documentary time is here. you can make a documentary to inspire change, raise awareness and answer this year's question, your message to the president, what issue is most important to you or your community, whether you're passionate about politics, the environment, or community stories.

student cam is your platform to share your message with the world, with $100,000 in prizes, including a grand prize of $5,000, this is your opportunity not only to make an impact, but also be rewarded for your creativity and hard wo. enter your submissions day. scan the code or visit student cam.org onheetails how to enter, the deadline is january 20th, 2025. c-span is yr unfiltered view of government who are funded by these television companies and more, including spark light. >> what is great internet? is it strong? is it fast? is it reliable? at spark light, we know connection goes way beyond technology. from monday morning meetings to friday nights with friends and everything in between. the best connections are always there right when you need them.

how do you know what's great internet? because it works. we're sparklight and we're always working for you. >> sparklight supports c-span as a public service,long with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> representative lori chavezeremer and her democratic challenger janle bynum engaged in a debate for oregon's direct which includes the city of bend and improving on mental health services the race i rated a tossup by the cook political report with amy walter. the debate was hosted by ktvz-tv. >> first is incumbent lori chavez-deremer elected to oregon's 5th congressional district in 2022 and 2024 to

the happy valley city council and mayor of happy valley in 2010 and 2014. and janelle bynum was elected 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022. she owns four fast food restaurants in the portland area and previously worked as an engineer for general motors. let's take a look at oregon's 5th congressional district, here you see the map, one of the more unique districts of the state and stretches from the southeast corner of portland here to central oregon. the district clusters, redmond, bend, and sun river. before opening statements tonight, here is a look at the format. candidates have two minutes for opening and closing statements. one minute to answer each question and one-minute rebuttal. and janelle bynum won the coin

toss. you have two minutes for your opening remarks. >> well, good evening, lee, and thank you for having us here. i'm janelle bynum, i'm a sports-loving mom of four, a small business owner, an electrical engineer and a four-term state legislator. i'm running because washington isn't working for oregon families. lori chavez-deremer has had ample time and opportunity to bring wins home for oregonians and that's not happening, it's chaotic and confusing and least productive congress we've had. i, on the other hand, is someone who has been working across the aisle to bring home big bipartisan wins for oregonians, the chips act with $200 million of investment leading to $43 billion of economic activity, or 23 police accountability and civil rights bills, and most of all, you can count on me to protect our reproductive rights.

chavez-deremer hasn't been doing that and i believe that oregonians deserve better. what is important to remember in this race, i am a work horse. i am a champion of the people. i will stand with working families. time and time again. i am a champion of the people. i will roll my sleeves up and i'm ready to get to work. >> all right. thank you, ma'am. now, we go to congresswoman lori chavez-deremer, two minutes. >> thank you, lee, thank you to all the people watching in oregon's 5th district and across the nation tonight. i'm lori chavez-deremer. i have been married to my husband, shaun deremer for 33 years, raised beautiful twin girls, emily and annie who are now 30 and getting ready to have my first grandson in march. i spent the last 24 years in happy valley, oregon, building a small business with my husband over the last 18 plus

years. as was mentioned i was city councillor for happy valley for six years and then the mayor for eight years. and now i'm honored to serve as your congresswoman in oregon's 5th congressional district. i look forward to sharing tonight my accomplishments, the wins that we have brought home to oregon's 5th district and addressing what i have been working on in the 118th when it comes to affordability, when it comes to the southern border, when it comes to addressing the fentanyl crisis we're seeing on our streets and the lack of public safety respect that we have for our law enforcement officers here in oregon and really, the decimation of what measure 110 has done to the streets of oregon and killing our children. you'll hear tonight my opponent's record of almost a decade long failure in the state legislature, where housing is no more affordable than when she started, crime is rampant, overdose deaths are up. 22% more overdose deaths above

the nation's average, which has started to fall, but not here in oregon. we're going to see my opponent lie to you about her failed record and we'll expose it tonight and i look forward to answering all the questions. >> all right, thank you, ma'am. it's time for our first question of the night and focuses on affordable housing crisis. the average rent in bend is nearly $1700 and the average home price now ranges from 7 to $800,000. congress and the federal government has been absent on this issue and could you support any federal rent control what can congress do to bring the cost of housing down? representative lori chavez-deremer, you have one minute. >> certainly as you mentioned, lee, we see costs in central oregon, a study done, one in three homes in the bend area is over a million dollars. that's not affordable. if we do not address the land

use issues in the state. someone like myself who comes in and tries to assist families, young families trying to buy their first home, i've worked through the hud program to make sure that we can have choice and affordability acts, i've been a proponent and sponsor of that and also the expansion of vouchers that will help not only our people who are renting, but also our landlords, address some of the concerns that they have. those are the kind of credits that we need to make sure that we're offering young families who have saved and really post covid in because of the cost of gas prices, grocery prices and liftability, their savings are almost wiped out. and they'll assist the people, and i look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle to get the work done for oregonians. >> janelle bynum, one minute. >> there's no question there's affordable housing crisis i've

been at the table making sure that young families have access to affordable housing through the implementation much vouchers, through the implementation of first time home buyer credits, through-- and especially people who are on the streets. i've also led into legislation on tiny homes. here is what it looks like to me, i have a daughter entering the work force, she's going to graduate school and she was looking for a place to live when she was looking for schools. and you know, in boston, it was $3,000 a month for a very small apartment. and when you think about how kids are launching into this world, we have to be focused on making sure that they have opportunities to get into housing, that they have opportunities to attend graduate school as well. what is really important here is that my opponent cannot be trusted because she wants to roll in the trump tax cuts again. we know those went to the top

1% of 1% and we cannot afford that. >> thank you, and lori chavez-deremer. >> well, if she wants affordability, as a math equation, you cannot fund a nonprofit hacienda and give $30,000 to non-citizens in the state of oregon to purchase their first home when hard working oregon families have been trying to save and have that access. as far as the trump tax cuts, if we do not make those permanent in the next congress, 551,000 taxpayers in oregon's 5th districts, those taxes will go up by 20%. that's more than $2,000 more a year for families who make $97,000 or less and for some families more than $500 will go up if we don't make the trump tax cuts permanent. it will hurt working families and the middle class. >> all right, janelle bynum, you have one minute. i think what my opponent is getting at here is one more reason not to trust her. one more reason that she is going to ensure that the top 1%

of this country is always taken care of and middle class families and young families, young men and women going into the work force can't afford anything. these are tax cuts that middle class families are paying for. these are tax cuts that you're putting on our backs. these are tax cuts that as my opponent said are good for some of us. she's not worried about the rest of us. she's worried about some of us. that is in stark contrast to me as a mother, making sure that our young people can launch off strong in life, making sure that we value our land, but we also make permitting changes so that we have more land to build on. one of the things i learned in doing the chips act was that we had land, but we didn't have the infrastructure dollars to get that land usable. i'll work in congress to make sure that we have land, housing, and our kids have a strong launching pad. >> thank you very much. that was a nice discussion. would you like to continue very

quickly, lori, would you like to say anything else? >> i would. the child tax credit is something that i work on expanding. it's again, the trump tax cuts are not confirmed this next cycle and put permanent. do you know the child tax credit will get cut in half, and the rent pays for families, will get cut. my opponent doesn't know what she's talking about because she's not been a member of congress. >> janelle, how do you respond to that? >> we trusted lori to go to congress and support all of us not just some of us. she continues to focus on the top 1% of the country. she likes, enjoys running with her cronies, including trump and the administration trying to make sure that only the rich get ahead. i think we deserve better. we can't trust her. >> all right. thank you very much, ladies. let's move on to question number two and staying on the subject of affordability now.

restaurant prices have skyrocketed. entrees in central oregon are now $20 at least, even at food carts on top of customers being expected to then tip 20%. and it's not just affordable for most to go out to eat anymore. how did this happen and what can congress do to bring down the prices and address tipping? representative bynum, you start this one. >> one of the things we should remember is coming out of the pandemic, we saw a lot of our supply chain disrupted, and part of that was the reason-- part of the reason for that was trump's irresponsibility in managing how our supply chain was being managed, how we were interfacing with the world and quite frankly, how we were going to make sure that working families always had enough food to eat, had affordable medicines, and had affordable housing. he didn't take care of that, and my opponent continuously supports him. i, on the other hand, through the chips act wanted to make

sure that we tackled our supply chain issues and this was through semiconductors, this was through the things that power our refrigerators, power our credit card machines, power almost everything in our lives. i want today make sure that we interrupted the supply chain issues and that we stayed focused on the main things, trump has been a disaster and he has been chaotic and my opponent supports him. that's why we can't trust her. >> all right. congresswoman lori chavez-deremer. >> thank you so much. in regards to this-- you mentioned tipping. and in regards, the former president talked about that. what it would mean to people who work in the service industry, if they didn't have to pay income tax on their tips. that would be a benefit and they could keep more money in their own pocket. you know, people work hard every single day and they just want to keep that money in their pocket. oftentimes overtaxed and overregulated and my opponent voted nine times in her time in

legislature to raise taxes that does not help affordability. energy costs we have to discuss what it can mean to reach the demand that's needed and have a well-rounded portfolio. those are the things that i have been working on on a bipartisan way with my colleagues. i have been for and sponsored the tax relief for american families act and measure 118, it's on the ballot. people are paying attention to that, that will decimate oregon's economy, i've spoken out about it, the rest of congress has and my opponent is for measure 118. >> very well. janelle bynum, one minute. my opponent as you can see can't be trusted. she has asked me very directly whether i supported measure 118. no, that's been-- that's been very clear. what lori chavez-deremer and her cronies in washington, who are part of the most dysfunctional, non-working, do-nothing congress, what they want to do is throw small bones

at the american public. they want to make you think they're making progress they want to give you a little here just to keep you quiet and shut you up. in reality, what they're doing, they're taking their own thrills, they're taking all of our money and giving it to the top 1%. trump and his currenties are robbing this country blind. lori chavez-deremer is reaping the benefits by serving with him and rubber stamping every policy she has. she's part of a no good, do-nothing congress. >> lori chavez-deremer one minute. thank you, well, you know why you can trust me because i have fought for you, i fought against it so you can put money in your pockets. i have support of labor, and unions in oregon because they know i'm going to create jobs for them. why would 20 unions endorse a republican and typically they

wouldn't because they trust me. my opponent continues to talk about trust, but i've brought 27 million dollars back to the state of oregon to have their tax dollars back and more than 500 million for the portland va for our veterans to have the access and care that they need and right here in redmond, 1.2 million for the wetlands complex for the waste water structure project and $5 million back for the bend municipal airport. so this grows the economy and in bend, pro housing grants, 3 million to the city of bend. so i've not been a do nothing and that's the part she doesn't like, i've been successful in only 22 months and for almost 10 years, failed policies and no wins that she can talk about. >> thank you, ma'am. we're ready for question number three. this turns to transgender athletes, oregon state law and federal law allows transgender athletes to share locker rooms and playing fields with female athletes, even if they're born a biological male. where do you stand on this

issue? should anyone who identifies as a female be allowed to play in women's sports and share locker rooms? congresswoman lori chavez-deremer, you begin this one. >> yes, we have to make sure that we're protecting women. title ix for the last dozens of years, tens of dozens of years has protected women in sports, we fought for so long for our young women to protect them to have access to sporting events, make the money they want and be protected. for this to be continued down the road of where we are, i don't stand for it. i don't think it's a good policy and we need to make sure that we're protecting our women. i really don't just see a longer answer to that, it's pretty cut and dried to me. yeah, we have to protect our women in sports and title ix make sure we're not harming our young women that we fought for so long for. we have young girls-- i've protected my daughters throughout and we should continue down that road. >> all right. janelle bynum. >> let's go back to the

previous question which i didn't have an opportunity to have a rebuttal for. my opponent doesn't show up for labor, she got their endorsements and she treats them like trading cards. i, however, have shown up on the line for them. i've been to the nabisco line where they make oreo cookies, i've been to providence hospital supporting the nurses, i've been to kaiser hospital supporting the nurses and staff there. i've been. i've shown up. now, she took their-- she took their endorsements and said a few things in committee and then when it was time to show up for them, she couldn't even show back up to committee. that's why we can't trust her. >> ma'am, may i cut you off here, we did check, you did have a rebuttal time on the previous question. if you would please keep your answer to this question, we'd appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you.

as it relates to sports, i support trans kids. i support inclusive sports. i support all of our children being able to play on a fair playing field anytime they choose to participate. i'm not going to target children and make them feel unsafe in our schools, that's one difference between myself and my opponent. i believe children should be safe in schools and targeting them is just immoral. >> lori chavez-deremer, you have one minute. >> i think the question was women, trans and women in sport. she didn't answer that question because she's afraid to answer that question. >> i'm not afraid to answer that question. i support trans kids. >> in women's sports? >> full stop. >> in women's sports? >> an education and work force one of the subcommittees i'm on, we had a conversation regarding our young trans youth and the only republican to stand up on the democratic side

in that committee making sure they're not outing in the education system, two-very questions and two different issues, you can know the seem to separate that. >> janelle bynum an additional one minutes. >> i can say it all day, i support trans kids. if the issue were easy we would have solved it by now, but one thing i do know, it is very, very dangerous to target children. i have stood up for children time and time again. i will make sure that trans kids are protected. this, in my opinion, is immoral, and it's a typical republican talking point to target the vulnerable. it's a dog whistle. and if they come after trans kids they'll come after you. that's been very clear. there are no protections for people who are vulnerable in their minds. they come after them. they'll come after you. >> thank you both very much. we're ready for question number four now.

viewers cannot miss your campaign ads. what claims made by your opponent in those ads would you like to address and representative janelle bynum, you begin this question. >> i don't watch her ads. i can tell you in my ads that i've stood up for reproductive rights, full stop. i'm not mealy-mouthed about protecting birth control and ivf, i'm not mealy-mouthed about standing up for full reproductive rights in this countries. we know that republicans are coming for women in their exam rooms with their doctors. we know they want a full abortion ban. lori chavez-deremer has celebrated this. she's on the fence, you can't figure out. she will say she's in the

middle. there's no middle ground. you either support women and women's health across this country or you don't. >> very good. lori chavez-deremer. >> but you don't support women in sports, funny. campaign ads i want to address the social security issue, there's a ad out there, talking 26 times i would not support social security and fund it. that's an outright lie. my opponent likes to lie and will not back it up. i don't know where she gets this and i can't figure it out or my team can't figure 0 out. i'll support social security and medicare. i was one of the few republicans who walked down to the well on the house floor on the u.s. house of representatives signed a discharge position against leadership to say that i will support our social security and retirement for our teachers, for our police officers, and for our firefighters. unlike my opponent in the house, in salem, who signed on and was the deciding vote on senate bill 1049 that stripped

for teachers, for firefighters and for our police officers. >> janelle bynum. >> first of all, there is no deciding vote, unless you are the last vote. >> which you were. >> i was not the last vote. >> did you take the vote in the affirmative to-- >> my opponent voted 26 times to vote. >> cite it, cite it. >> baby, i will send it tonight. she vote today cut benefits for oregonians and americans across the board. she is in the cuts mode for things that originalions and americans need, medicare, law enforcement, agriculture, they voted to cut 30% of the u.s. budget, they're voting-- they are looking to cut to the department of education which

helps our children, especially children with special needs, they are looking to cut, cut things from our lives that we actually need. i have the proof. >> all right. lori chavez-deremer. >> yeah, thank you. well, difficulting waste and streamlining is part of our job, 36 trillion dollars, but cutting our priorities and our mandatory spending is not going to happen. talking about discretionary spending which we have the authority over, only 11% of the budget is where we can find waste, fraud and abuse and addressing our debt. 36 trillion in debt. we have to address it, it's part of our job. you're talking mandatory spending which i have never taken a vote on to cut medicare or social security, unlike my opponent right here in the state house for other local law enforcement, firefighters, police officers and teachers, -- i have an endorsement of the largest police union and

firefighters in oregon because they trust me to protect their jobs, protect their social security, protect their retirement so they can also take care of their families they have worked so hard for to protect us. >> all right. seems like we pushed the right button on that one. thank you to both of our candidates. when we come back we'll be joined by long time oregon reporter, heather roberts, and we'll hear the candidates' thoughts on reaching across the aisle and the climate crisis. stay with us. welcome back to news channel 21's live debate for oregon's 5th congressional district. i'm joined by long time reporter in oregon heather roberts. >> thank you, lee, very nice to be here. my first question has to do with the 5th district's unique makeup. it's one of the most politically diverse in the state. so ladies, how do you plan to bridge the divide and represent all constituents, right, left, rural and urban? >> and congresswoman lori chavez-deremer, you're first on this one. >> thank you, again, heather.

i've had the opportunity to serve oregon's 5th district for the last 22 months and proud to do so and get to know the ideosyncrasies and the uniqueness. it's a great district all the way from portland all the way to bend and i know at the beginning it felt unusual, why would we mix the two, but they were mixed and i'm proud to serve over 750,000 who serve in the district and a lot of the issues are the same. if you go back to the kitchen table issues, and what people are concerned about, they want to talk about their children, talk about public safety, they want to talk about the economy, talk about what's working for them and what isn't. and then what maybe is unique is probably the urbanization and really the concentrated crime and how difficult it is to do business right now in the portland metro area and over here in central oregon, we're going at that talk about wildfires and water and lack of and how to address some of the agriculture issues we're experiencing and at the same time some of the policies that have been done by the state where we have unaffordable housing across the state and of

course, our homelessness and our drug addiction and our mental health crisis. >> very good. janelle bynum, the same question. >> offense the last eight years i've been successful in serving house district 39 and 51 because i've held town halls regularly, i have had walking town halls, i've had thematic town halls, one of which was on fentanyl, i've brought together law enforcement, schools, our public safety, our public health department and we talked about what fentanyl might do in the community and this was really, really early. so it's these town halls that makes me a much more savvy leader and make me someone who is in touch with what is happening in the area. one difference between myself and my opponent is that i do town halls where you can actually talk to me. i show up, they are regularly held. my opponent has been criticized for my holding town halls that

people can reach her at. and i think what's really, really important, you can trust me because i can show up. you can't trust lori chavez-deremer because she won't talk to you. >> lori chavez-deremer, one minute. >> yeah, thank you so much. well, i think it's kind of funny on the town halls, you know, you're my representative and i've never been contacted about a town hall that you've held. so, i call nonsense on that. but, it is about talking to the public. we're talking about round tables. i just held a natural resource committee here in redmond just a few days ago to talk about the lack of water and what we're going to do with our irrigation districts. i talk to timber round tables, what we're going to do with the wildfires and how we'll address that this congress and mental health and we have it right in the streets of oregon city, round tables, the mental health professionals and representatives from the state of oregon and what they needed from the federal government. so teletown halls reaching as many people as possible. i just don't take marching order from one single group

indivisible, whose only mission is to defund the police and really be extreme in their views. i want to talk to people who want to be pragmatic and thoughtful who want to get things done. we don't always have to agree on everything, but what we have to agree on is being civil and making sure to try to get to the thoughtful solutions. >> janelle bynum, one minute. >> what i tell every constituent and even those who don't live in my district, is that your state representative, your state senator, and even your federal representative, they owe you 15 minutes. they owe you 15 minutes where you live, and where you work. and i am committed to that. i've shown up at people's jobs. i've shown up for them at their home. there was a group of triplets that want today talk to me about civics and i went by their house, really? i'm your neighbor, i am course i'm going to show up. to me it's really about being accessible, personal, not making any judgments, making sure that people who are either

not in a political-- the same political party as you or don't have a political party still feel like they can come and talk to you. that's why for the last eight years, i've been very successful in serving a purple district and making sure that all of the residents of the district felt warm and welcomed and well-represented. >> thank you very much. heather roberts has submitted some fantastic questions tonight. what's your next one? >> my next question, very relevant, with the hurricanes that pummelled the east, and the wildfires here, what do you think and should the federal government take further action? >> this goes to janelle bynum first. >> the climate crisis i would say is real. just a few years ago my family and i actually had to flee and was a very-- it was a memorable and a very traumatic experience i would

say because the wildfires had come within about three miles of our house. what i will say on the environment is that with project 2025, what we can count on with republicans is that they will try and decimate the epa, they will try and allow people to build on land that should not be built on, and they will not intervene in insurance pricing. these are all things that have an actual impact on how we deal with the environment. i also have put forth legislation to make oregon a clean energy hub. i am proud to have presented that legislation and i know that oregon is going to be the center of that activity. that's what i've done to help with the environmental crisis. >> i would just like to further reiterate the second part of that question, do you believe that congress should take further action? >> absolutely. wherever -- i believe congress should take action wherever it can. so whether it's in making sure

that people aren't building in places that should not be built, making sure that we invest in technology. i'm an engineer, the technological advances that can be made through drones, that can be made through the cross-laminated timber. through smaller diameter trees and forestry. those are all things that congress can invest in and i think that's what we should to. >> all right, lori chavez-deremer. >> yeah, thank you so much for that question. absolutely, congress should be involved in the space. for far too long, we have not had the conversation because again, this is not a partisan issue and i love to talk about the space, that's why when i got to congress i made sure i was working bipartisan across the aisle, with the bipartisan climate caucus, and we'd get together and we'd talk about energy sectors, talk about the abundance of the energy we have in the united states so we're not reliable on other countries like russia and china solely, so we don't have the issues there, we want to make sure we're talking about clean

energy, affordable energy, is it healthy? is it safe? as a mom, we worry about those things. my opponent mentioned she and her family had to flee at one point where you feel unsafe and concerned about that. what about the women who are pregnant? we want to make sure we're addressing that, but we have to mitigate the wildfire management and i want to talk more, i know i'm going to be out of time. clean, affordable, safe, healthy, that's what we have to be focused on and i've signed onto letters to make sure we invest in green energy. >> you'll get another minute to address that. >> thank you. >> janelle bynum. >> what struck me by my opponent's answer she talked about protecting pregnant women and when pregnant women have to flee a wildfire and potentially go to a state where their pre productive rights are not protected as they're not protected here in oregon. i'm curious what will you say to them about what services are available in say, idaho or

nebraska, or michigan? like, that's the kind of puzzle that women shouldn't have to put together. it's really, really striking that we are now drawing a line between fleeing wildfires and actually protecting women across the country with their reproductive rights. this is iconic. >> lori chavez-deremer. >> thank you, i'm not connecting the dots there, i'm not sure what she's talking about when we're talking about wildfires, and natural disasters like happened in florida, but several things that i've worked on in congress to make sure we're increasing our pay for wildfire firefighters, and working on making those positions permanent. ... long those positions aren't permanent. i have written letters to the u.s. forest service to make sure we are addressing. i visited the smoke jumpers who are risking their lives every single day. we have done a lot on

affordability and also clearing out our corridors. making sure we are paying attention that we can cut back and get to those roads to that takes education and funding for our district. i have been proud to work on these bipartisan measures on energy so we can make sure we're protecting our climate l times. >> thank you ladies. heather, this will be a hard one to top but you have another one. >> ladies, this raises among a handful which could decide the majority party in the u.s. house. how would you work across the aisle specific budget bills and keeping the government running? >> thank you. i've been so proud of my bipartisan record in congress. i made that promise when it talked to voters 24 months ago when it asked them to trust me on thisru issue, and they did. i wentt back to congress and out of 300 bills i'm on, 84% are

bipartisan. i make should work my colleagues in the state of oregon one of the most vipers and the use of cogs and most by partisan number in the oregon delegation. i worked with the congresswoman on education, andrey on agriculture and others on transportation for such of the we talk to each other and make sure we arek addressing oregons needs first. that was my promise that it were present everybody. i'm proud to do that work and it takes time. we talkil about budgeting we can always get to a yes. that's how i did when i was mayor. we canan always get to point we can agree to make the best policy. >> janelle bynum. >> as an as a mama four i ar negotiator and i try to understand what each persons interests are, what their motivations are what their bright lines are and us an successful in bringing home multiple bills come b with it ws a chips act i submitted before, 200, $300 million of investment

for oregonians leading to $43 billion of economic activity in this state. or it along public safety, i worked across the aisle with by republican parker, ron noble,, who was the vice chair of judiciary committee and i make sure no bill passed our committee without his support. i also made sure that i attended meetings that were outside of the halls of the legislature making sure we made genuine friendships and i've loved attending the prayer meeting a every wednesday afternoon. >> allra right. lori chavez-deremer, one minute. >> she brought up public safety so we'll address it now. again on working cross the aisle making sure you're working with your vice chair in your judiciary committee. again i mentioned to you that you said you talked to ron noble and he would understand of the bill. i talked to rhonda boswell and i mentioned it to you before. what he wrote other day along with every other public safety

offer to say that you are not telling the truth, that your mischaracterizing that when they were pushed into a corner he do any other choice except to pick the best of the worst choices. you can't be bipartisanship and invite people to rip and not listen to them. that's the puzzle piece of starting to recognize, that as almost ten your legislator failed policies whether type of housing, public safety, you have side with the wrong people and you dismantle law enforcement to do their job and keep oregonians safe. becausend of that people are de. >> janelle bynum. i am in a year because you lost to me tries -- twice. ron noble talked about how great the work was that we did. no one pressured him into doing that. to say otherwise is a lie. ron noble is a man of the cloth.

i'm quite surprised that he would lie to you or you would lie here on national television. >> it's in public. it was released a few hours ago. >> that's unfortunate because we have really good legislation he worked on making sure that we change the rules, making sure that people when we had use of force issues that we change that. we also made sure police officers who were not worthy of the badge couldn't stay on payroll. he will tell you with a smile, he got what he wanted. >> interesting discussion. i think you have definitely hit the button on that one. what do you say we give them an extra 20 to talk about that? >> i want to remind you the question is about bipartisanship specifically in the halls of congress and related to getting a balanced budget passed. >> ladies. >> this is the work we have to

do. we passed five appropriations bills. it takes negotiation in such a split congress and that is why it does take the bipartisan work. that is why when members like myself joined problem solvers so we can come to discussions and leave out the extreme sides, work together in the halls of congress. anything else that you see on tv is nonsense because i work hard across the aisle every single day. >> janelle bynum. >> i will go back to the chips act. we were masterful in making sure we negotiated something for all oregonians to be able to benefit from and that wasn't just an idea that democrats wanted or that republicans were going to win with this bill. this was a joint committee with inclusion and it made sure we had all oregonians at the table and they could all benefit. i have multiple examples. >> thank you to both of the candidates. thank you to heather roberts.

great questions. when we come back, we will be joined by the publisher of the source here in bend and the candidates will give their thoughts on measure 110 and abortion rights. welcome back to news channel 21's live debate coverage for organs fifth congressional district. we are now joined by aaron sweitzer, publisher of the source. thanks for coming in tonight. you have some big shoes to fill because heather's questions were outstanding. >> she's incredible. my first question involves controversial measure 110. would you advocate for supporting or expanding these programs? >> representative bynum, you start. >> voters can trust me on the issue because i believe that early in the conversation or prior to even having measure 110 on the table that we should have been investing in mental health supports across the state.

i wrote an open letter with many other mental health providers to governor kate brown calling for state investment in mental health support. we know that is one reason that measure 110 was not successful. we didn't have the infrastructure. high was the visionary who called that out ahead of time and i know that oregonians across the state wanted a clear and compassionate option for people who were experiencing substance abuse and addiction. we didn't get measure 110, we didn't get the implementation at the state level at the level people needed it at and i lead on making sure we could correct that. if you have a vision, you should be able to follow it through from start to finish. >> measure 110 has been a failed experiment and it was led by janelle bynum. >> that's not true. >> she mentioned she wanted to

address mental health, but she didn't. she couldn't get to it before measure 110 was on the docket. she's the home team. all three houses. >> you are lying, that's why you can't get it out. >> when you are a visionary, you don't put something on the board unless you can finish it. measure 110 was a failure that has led to more drug addiction and more people dying on the streets. fentanyl and the opioid crisis are killing people on the street and this is why law-enforcement doesn't trust her, didn't support her and begged her not to do it. she dismantled law enforcement. she wrote bills to fund the police and she decided it was a good idea to side with rapists. >> my opponent has fantasies of me siding with the wrong side of the law. what is really important to

remember here is that i lead on the fentanyl conversation and mental health and you can't match that. >> then why are people dying and still struggling with mental health? >> we can't trust you. you were nowhere to be found when we tried to work on fentanyl as a leading issue. you were nowhere to be found when it came to working on mental health. you were not putting forth any ideas. i was the one making sure the oregon state legislature put an $80 million to grow the number of mental health providers. i made sure that happened and i will continue to make sure that happens. >> i was not on the state legislature who decided to be a champion and sold people a false bill of goods. but what i have done to address the fentanyl crisis, it was passed into law and signed by president biden, making sure we can protect our young families. i also passed the help fentanyl

act. andrea salinas is running all over tv because it's a good bill. we have to make sure we are investing to protect our children. we have to shut that southern border to make sure the drugs are not flooding into a state like oregon and we have to support and respect our law enforcement so they can do their jobs and feel good about it. >> you've got great questions, too. what's your next one? >> this question turns to abortion rights. would you support a national ban on abortion, why or why not? >> congresswoman chavez-deremer. >> i would not support it and the reason is because we do not have the authority or jurisdiction to do so. after the scotus ruling in 2022, it is now a states rights issue and oregon has spoken loud and clear that they would like to protect their abortion rights. more than 65% of the population has said they want access.

we will not see a vote on the house floor anymore. and if anybody tried to bring it forward, i would imagine it's going to end up again in a court case because it's a state rights issue. >> i have stood up repeatedly from the time i entered the state house doors until now to make sure that women across oregon have access to reproductive health care whether it was the reproductive health equity act or making sure that doctors weren't extradited to other states for their participation in caring for their patients who may have to have reproductive care procedures. my opponent has voted 13 times in various capacities to ensure that reproductive health care rights are not protected across this country. we know republicans want her on their books. we know they want her at the table. we know they want her in the numbers so that they can limit

ivf and options for woman's birth control. we know they want her for the numbers and we can't let that happen. we don't trust her. >> lori chavez-deremer. >> again, that's an outright lie. i don't know where the 13 comes from and she cannot fight it so she makes that up. contraception is important. i'm on the contraception act with my colleagues. i have my own ivf bill so women can't decide when they want to have their children. i'm on a second ivf bill for a tax credit of more than $30,000 to go toward how expensive that is. so that's nonsense. i was the one who kept it off the floor. to even have the discussion on a national ban. we have to know the reality. sometimes we have to do a reality overlay of what's happening in 2024. at one time have i taken any vote to fundamentally dismantle woman's right to choose here in

oregon. >> good discussion. janel. >> we know that lori chavez-deremer is taking more moderate approach now because i have been in her face about it because we are holding her feet to the fire about it. she promised one thing here in oregon and then went to washington and completely flipped on us. we can't trust her. i have two daughters. i want to make sure there reproductive rights are protected wherever they are in this country. full stop. no negotiation. >> very good. great discussion. let's give them a little extra time. >> how about 20 seconds? >> i am a mom. i know how important this issue is. people want us to be compassionate and thoughtful about this. this is not in the house of representatives. this is no longer in congress.

this is a states rights issue. to say that i'm in the pocket of anybody is nonsense. this is why my independent voice and leadership representing all of oregon matters. people do trust me because my record speaks for itself. >> you get an extra 20 seconds on this, janelle bynum. >> one of the things particularly important to me is making sure the issue of maternal mortality gets discussed in congress. we know the women of color are dying in childbirth because they can't get reproductive care. and they are dying in a country that has access to the highest level of health care around the world. so this idea that we can't protect women -- we can only protect women at the state level and not nationally has also part of the reproductive health care rights conversation. >> another question.

>> my last question turns to election integrity. do you believe our elections are free and fair? what if anything concerns you about election integrity at the state and national level? >> we begin with janelle bynum. >> election integrity is important to me because i'm just one generation removed from jim crow segregation. my mother grew up in the jim crow south and terror was part of the agenda. and when we think about who was encouraged to vote and who wasn't, that is still blood on this country's hands. that's why i am a pure and free defender of democracy. that's why i make sure that my children vote, that we talk about voting as part of their civic duty and i want to make sure that we are always ensuring that our elections are free and fair. i'm proud of oregon's model. not proud of the mistake the secretary of state's office

made, but i'm proud of oregon's vote by mail model. >> lori chavez-deremer. >> free and fair elections is the backbone of our democracy. we can always do better and make sure we are fixing the mistakes. here in oregon, my opponent voted for the dmv on this issue. just now is she coming out and saying -- she's never questioned it before. having 1500 people registered to vote who are noncitizens is a problem. i wrote a letter to the secretary of state asking those to be addressed. we just cannot have any breakdowns if we can protect it and that's what i want to do. always have this conversation and make sure we protect our democracy not only in this conversation but also in america. >> your response. >> one of the things that gave

me pause was when former president trump was telling a group of potential supporters that they only had to vote this one time. and if they voted this one time, he would take care of it from there. and that gave me chills. because telling someone that you're going to take care of the election, that's a problem. >> will come back to our live debate for oregon's fifth congressional district. time for closing statements. you will each have two minutes. lori chavez-deremer, you begin. >> thank you for hosting this. it is so important for oregon's fifth district to make the decision on who you want to represent you in washington, d.c.. this job i take very seriously. i'm very grateful to my colleagues across the country who i've been able to work with on both sides of the aisle. i think we have stayed focused and worked hard to represent all

oregonians paired we have some serious issues in this country. we have to secure our border and get that fentanyl off the streets. we do not need another 9/11 or a terrorist attack on a. we have to support our public safety officers and we have to have a leader who says they will have their back at all times and allow them to do their jobs and bring back the respect they deserve. as a mom and business owner and former mayor, i understand what it takes to get the job done. we can't go halfway and then quit. we can't ruin the relationships that we have built. if my opponent has had a 10 year record almost in salem and she has lost the support of law enforcement and homebuilders and

realtors and people, they don't trust her. we saw what happened that she did not protect a young woman who came to her. talk about sexual harassment, she decided to cover it up. to me, you have a mandate. you are an acquired mandatory reporter to follow the law and protect our young women. so tonight we heard she's going to protect women and when she had the opportunity as a mom, legislator and lawmaker, she chose not to do it. we cannot trust janelle bynum to walk the halls of congress. i ask for your vote and i look forward to serving you in the 119th congress. >> janelle bynum, two minutes for closing remarks. >> i am excited about the choice you have for oregon's fifth congressional district and to me, the choice is very clear. you have the choice between democracy versus autocracy.

you have a choice between a person who supports working families or a person who supports the 1%. you have the choice between someone who for stop supports the codification of roe v. wade versus someone who is half in and half out. you have the choice between someone who supports working families, who supports labor, who shows up. or a person who can't ever really be found when it comes right down to it. i have been someone that has worked across the aisle whether it was in public safety, economic questions or conversations. i have been that person that is a strong and steady leader. i have been the person who doesn't take the bait. i have been the person who has made sure that i have held lori chavez-deremer accountable in this election for her strong

unwavering love school brandon support of president trump, a 34 time convicted felon. and a person who has been credibly accused of sexual assault. don't take the bait, oregonians. don't take the bait. she's trying to make you forget. that's who her man is and she's standing by her man. you can't trust lori chavez-deremer. i am the visionary, i am the steady, i am the mom of four who is going to bring oregon's fifth congressional district doctor glory. >> thank you so much for >> thank you so much to both of our candidates for joining uss here news channel 21. thank you for watching here in central oregon and around the nation. we have you covered everything election related. make sure to download our app. visit our website, watches on air. our next newscast against in just a few moments. have a good evening, everyone. ♪ ♪ ♪

>> with one of the tightest races for control of congress in modern political history stay ahead with c-span's comprehensive coverage of key state debate. this fall c-span brings you access to the nation's top house, senate and governor debates from across the country. debates from races shaping your state future and the balance of power in washington. follow our campaign 2024 coverage from local to national debates anytime online at c-span.org/campaigns and be sure to watch tuesday november 5 for live real-time election night results. c-span, your unfiltered view of politics, powered by cable. >> later today award-winning investigative journalist and author bob woodward discusses his latest book war examined the ongoing wars in the middle east and ukraine and 2024

presidential election posted by the "washington post" watch this virtual event live at noon eastern on c-span2, c-span now our free mobile video app or online at c-span.org here. >> c-span is or unfiltered view of government. we are funded by the television companies and more including charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers and we're just getting started building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communication suorts c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> next, , democratic congresswoman alyce slot can and former republican congressman mike rogers nominees in the 2024

race to represent michigan and u.s. senate participant in a debate hosted by w00 tv and news nation. this race is rated as a tossup by the nonpartisan cook political report with amy walter. it's about one hour. >> its debate back in michigan. former congressman mike rogers says he will return to washington and get america back on track. >> the most expensive nuclear yn operate in michigan in 2024 is your grocery cart thanks to the democrats in washington, d.c. >> congresswoman elissa slotkin promised to expand the middle class. >> the prices are too high on botta thinks, groceries, gas. >> will retire do is attack specific costs that are still a huge part of people budget. >> tonight for the first time they take the stage together here at issue inflation, immigration, economy, who shares your values and your hopes for our country.

the stakes could not be higher. >> good evening from the news nation speed use in washington. your host. control of the united states senate and the white house run through michigan the next 60 minutes will reshape the race. on moderator for two nights debate is rick. the next debate is being broadcast to mackinacto island. your stint on my end across the country on news nation. before we get to the questions let's go to the rules. mr. rogers and ms. slot can you each have 60 seconds for opening statement picky also have 66 66 answer a question for the rebuttals you each have 30 seconds. each can well have 60 seconds for a closing statement. and now live from grand rapids debate night in michigan.

>> thanks, we look and thanks are cute and thank you for being here and thanks, everybody for viewing. we encourage all folks watching tonight to let us know your thoughts by using the hashtag moi sent debate. we can find source which are used in developing the nights questions. as per agreemen' with the candidates each will get asphyxiation second opening statement according to determine congresswoman slotkin you will go first.. thank you for being here. you have 60-second. >> thanks for having me. thanks for hosting us. i'm elissa slotkin, a third-generation michigander and the about congresswoman from michigan's seventh district. my life and national security actually began on 9/11, happen to be new york city on my second day at school when 9/11 happened, cummaquid by the cia. did three tours in iraq alongside a military and get back and worked for two presidents one democrat, one republican probably because i believe service should be nonpartisan.

i'm running because i believe we must enhance and strengthen the middle class. michigan invented the middle class. that means jobs with dignity and it means bringing down the costs eating a whole and peoples pocketbooks. globe are having this debate. there's real differences between me and my opponent but the good news is we both have records. i have five years in u.s. congress.e mr. rogers had 20 years as an elected politician. you can see clearly not just what we say we will do but what we've actually done. it's important with big differences on the middle class, on cost and a whole bunch of other issues. looking for. >> congressman rogers thank you for being here and it's your turn for 60 seconds for an opening statement. >> thanks to would tv. great idea. mike rogers, i'm the youngest of five boys and been in michigan for over 50 years. my father was a shop teacher. my mom worked at the local chamber of commerce. i'm a husband, a father that both of my kids are fantastic.

my daughter doesn't like racial turkey. my son getting out of military service. when you look at the challenges that we have, background like mine fighting crime on the streets. my military service. i went to university of michigan to get my rotc which is a little bit of a sticking point with my wife who is a diehard michigan state alumni, but we're getting over that and we're getting through it. why would we even get back into this business, if you will? it's because people, our families are hurting in michigan. they can't afford gas. they can't afford or electric bill. we have folks going to food pantries at the end of the month. we don't have to do it that way. the border, gas, ev mandates. we should talk about all of this, this evening. >> thank you. let's get right to her questions and here's where we started. even as we speak there is a major storm bearing down on florida.

fema's response to some of the disasters we seen recently have come into question throughout the south and even here in michigan. fema denied disaster relief after a tornado that struck portage and kalamazoo county in may. congresswoman slotkin, how would you prioritize fema and make sure they have the funds to meet the needs of the disasters we're seeing nationwide? yet 60-second. >> great question. we've had nine people dieie in e statein of michigan from 620 tht touchdown, four and the district of district of represent saw been visiting those places. sometimes we cut federal assistance sometimes we didn't. what is happening in north carolina and fearing in florida is terrifying and we need to make sure our disaster response is prepared for the next generation. we know we have more storms, stronger storms, extreme weather and fema needs to be prepared not just for the right personal but dash to handle all those things. so for me i was on homeland

security committee and we oversaw fema's budget. we increased the money they need perjure because we don't know for the next disasters going to come from but it's the responsibility of the federal government to deal with what we're dealing with in michigan which is true disasters when there's an act of god that happens in our state. >> thank you, congresswoman. congressman rogers in question. how would you prioritize to make sure fema has money to meet the needs that are out there that we see on a regular basis? 60-second. >> fema is an important organization and its work to do. one of the things that makes the sense in this last six years, if you will come is a fact fema spent almost $700 million on housing illegals and now told north carolina state on enough money to take care of american citizens who arere in desperate need in the middle of a disaster. so here you have a wide open border ino our south where the government, including my opponent, who has voted for

funding of illegal immigrants, housing, v food, phones. that comes out of the fema budget. so listen this is something really, really important. before going to get spending under control in washington, d.c., the last thing we need to be doing is spending money on illegal immigrants. close the border. fix that problem. make sure that fema focusing on americans in their time of need. >> congressman, you have a 32nd rebuttal. would you you include in that are responsive comes about the money from fema? >> no one despite of what's going on at the southern border but if the idea is as a federal representative the job with both running to represent we have to make sure youto have the resours needed for emergencies happening right now today in our state, in the state of michigan. prioritize funding. we have plenty of things to do on the board and help we have an opportunity to get into that. i am the congresswoman in the statist and more border security legislation, i'm ace cia officer who spent my life protecting the

country. we have to talk about the southern border. we also tols make sure fema is ready to address the problems in michigan now. >> congressman rogers you have 30 seconds. if you could include, would you appropriate or be in favor of appropriating more money for fema? >> we have to get it right first of all. diverting that money for illegals coming across the border is an absolute nonstarter for me and it should be a nonstarter for most michigan citizens. again, my opponent voted and voted and voted to allow that money to go to illegal immigrants. add to say now she has done more for the border, listen, six months of campaign ads don't make up for six years of really bad policy and bad judgment. we have got to fix the thinking back in washington, d.c. >> let's move on to the escalating tensions that are in the middle east. yesterday marked one year since the attacks on israel. israel continues daily attacks on hamas and hezbollah.

civilians have certainly been harmed in this. iran has launched missiles into israel. so with all of that, the question is, , congressman roge, is there a red line that israel could cross that would lose your support? >> i think one of the big problems people have been trying to be on both sides of this issue. we could have a ceasefire tomorrow if hamas would give up thee hostages. we have four americans still there. those americans should be brought home. they were dragged out of their homes viciously on october seventh, dragged into the tunnels of gaza. i think right now what we should do is support israel getting this piece right, frank at a ceasefire based on getting the hostages out first. they need the ability to defend themselves. they are being attacked from the north. they are having attackstt comehn

from gaza, and where all of this has started is in tehran. so if we don't contain tehran, i'm telling you what, will have more trouble, a more involved in the middle east. >> fifteen seconds. is there a red line israel could cause that would c lead your support? >> hypotheticals don't work in this. they have to defend themselves. you have to member iran is coming at them through hezbollah. hezbollah. iran is coming at them through hamas. iran has attacked 200 installations across the middle east since october 7. >> congresswoman slotkin come same question. is there a red line beyond which israel could go that would lose your support? >> i was at a memorial service yesterday for a one-year anniversary, extremely wrong, very present in michigan for people of all stripes have personal connections to the region. for me it's clear, we need a ceasefire deal that brings the hostages so. israel has a right to defend itself when people come and kill

their citizens, rape women, should ballistic missiles at them. that is something any country in what has right to do. we can also say we don't like seeing loss of life among civilians. iran is not in a very interesting moment. their big proxies have been killed or wiped down in hezbollah and hamas, and they just fired a very strategic rent a ballistic missiles including hypersonic missiles. israel has the right to respond. for me what i i won't do is i won't say the united states should get back into a big land were in the middle east. we spent 20 years and a rack and i served three tours alongside the military. for me i'm not interested in having another twenty-year war in the middle east. >> ten questions you come 15 seconds to answer iser a red lie beyond israel can go that will lose your support. >> was again the idea would be suckedur into putting americans sons and daughters and if it might put it was a big supporter of the iraq war. he wasas one of the leaders they got us into that war. i do not support another plan for inability.

>> you have a 32nd rebuttal to deal with all of these issues including that red line. >> unfortunately my opponent was wrong on all of this. the architect off the nuclear deal with iran, the fact she supported making sure saudi could defend itself against the houthis, takingot the houthis of the terrace which was by the way is not shooting at u.s. troops including our navy in the red sea. making iran have the capital by allowing them to sell oil into the market has engulfed us in the middle east. bad decision, that decision, that decision. not standing up to the fact they're using their proxies across the middle east that only to attack israel our ally but also to attack those 100 different installations around the middle east. >> you have a 32nd rebuttal. >> there's one of us on the state has been on the receiving end of iranian rockets, i mean in mortars, iranian ieds in three tours and director i don't intimate what it's like to have iranian terrorism to my friends

so i take a back seat to no one issue of a ring. i miss hockey just anyone. they've been hurt. deventer adversary for 50 50. we need to pressure them, to deter them, to detain them. >> next question and this hits home especially for some of our citizens on the side of the state. michigan has one of the largest arab-american populations of the country. do you believe a ceasefire is possible if either hamas or hezbollah has the current political structure and is allowed to remain in charge? you have 60 seconds. >> a ceasefire deal has to actually work to get the hostages back. they took hostages a year ago. they need to be returned. that has to be a a formal parf it. they can't be able to project power into the state of israel. we are deeply care about civilian casualties. we have is you managing disaster in gaza. yesterday hamas fired missiles inside of israel. hezbollah fired missiles inside a visual.

they have to come up to understand a ceasefire deal means you can't project by the into that state. you can't. a ceasefire deal but it needs to come where they can't project violence on to this day. israel has right to defend itself from the. >> moving on to you with the same question, congressman rogers. with the current situation with hamas and hezbollah is a possible to get all the sides to get to a ceasefire? >> you can never go anything to think it's never possible. a ceasefire could happen today if we could get the hostages out. you can't have government in gaza run by hamas. it's a terrorist organization. they demonstrated to the arctic they assassinated hostages in the way.ls along what we have to do now is find that place where we can get those hostages out and further have dialogue. but the problem is i rant is still coming at us. i understand my opponents notion

that there some asserting in iraq gives permission to be wrong in the entire effort toward iran. remember we are engulfed in the middle east from really bad policy. they are drawing the united states, the democrats along with the support of their congressional allies, includingg my c opponent, into a wider conflict. what you see happening, that decision that decision that decision. >> congresswoman slotkin you have a 30-second rebuttal and you can address including the congressman suggested you were wrong. >> it's important we do reflect a record. he was elected for 20 years. he was the chairman of house intelligence committee. anyone up to the iraq war there was no greaterp supporter, no greater fist bumper and mike rogers is leading us into war. therefore talk about i've missed these is theta way it is the way itit is, we have 20 years and broke and are back in the 20th broke in afghanistan.

many women americans dead. to me up to be extremely, extremely cautious when you talk about these issues. i will not succumb to bellicose talk on that. >> congressman rogers 30-second rebuttal and referred a lot of conversation. so wrap this question up. >> this is a little offensive to me is because i've my family and military during iraq f buildup. i was more cautious than most about a us being, using military force within the region. by the way, that information that was given to congress was based on cia at the time that my opponent was in the cia doing analytical work. if you think about how dangerous this is, and they get it, the cia has deception training. my opponent clearly went through that. you're supposed to use that against her abbasids, not michigan voter. >> moving on to another subject and that's the economy. thiss. is one that is been realy vexing, the latest paul says 61%

of voters in michigan called it the number one concern because prices are too high. by the way this is echoed across the country. people are paying too much for everything from food to gasoline. congressman rogers, specifically if you were elected what can and what would you do to help bring down prices? you have 60 seconds. >> i have traveled around the state. never seen such hurt in people sam is as i have now. met a young woman who is four kids, works part time, her husband works full-time in a small factory in michigan. in tears talked about how in the last two or three days of the month just to go to a food pantry to feed her family. this is absolutely unacceptable. and why? they poured money, my opponent voted for all of it, trillions of dollars of spending. that has raised the cost of groceries, raise the cost of gasoline. it has made the average family

in michigan about $12,000 in the hole before the start out with inflationary numbers. so here's the things i would do. we have to absolutely become energy independent. i for and all of the above policy but if we don't get gas prices down we will get food prices down. there is no sense from buying oil from venezuela. with capability in this country. regulation has to stop here at $1.6 trillion in new dollars in new regulation coming outin of washington, d.c. lastly, spending we got to get her arms around spending. >> congresswoman slotkin, you have called yourself team normal. you have set prices are too high and your priority is tackling inflation picks of the same question is, what are you going to do? what can you do to get prices down? you have 60 seconds. >> thank you. emily is the most common issue of anyone here, i can go into a grocery store without someone grabbing my arms and telling me i can't afford this, i can't afford some account from the

kids, people are hurting. they feel shame about it. so for me the only three things i've been working on doing that i believe in. number one is bringing supply chains back t home from places like china. that includes the 44 manufacturing facilitiesnc being built into state of michigan. you need a good, good job with good benefits. number two it's attacking the primary costs that are burning a hole in peoples pockets. health care, prescription drugs. we finally allowed medicare to negotiate drug prices. you've got to bring down costs likedr housing, child care. number three you got to keep our money in your pocket than you earn. taxes and tax policy you got to do things like to earn the child tax credit. give credit to middle-class families instead of breaks to the ultra wealthy. >> thank you. congressman rogers, you have a 30-second rebuttal and we're talking about bringing prices down. 30 seconds. >> if you want to help the middle class you don't do it by raising prices. you don'tcl do it by absolutely

reckless spending in washington, d.c. since by a poet has been elected we've lost in the state 29,000 manufacturing jobs. i worked in an assembly plant in michigan. these jobs are critical. the average price of those jobs, average wage of those 29,000 jobs, $72,000. you $2000. you cannot continue to say you are for the middle-class and eliminate the very ability for people to work in to the middle class ivies high-paying manufacturing jobs. >> congresswoman slotkin same, 30 seconds rebuttal and were talking about theom economy. >> this is important we have record. it's important. mr. rogers says he cares about cost. let's talk negotiating drug prices. it's the cost. you walk in a costco you know you get a lower price because you're buying in bulk. like rogers voted five times against allowing medicare to negotiate drug prices. military insurance are allowed to negotiate drug prices. the canadian skin but not the

americans. that is your unadulterated greed on behalf ofe the pharmaceutical industry. >> let's move on. we've seen what has happen with a 50% surge in housing prices from 2012-2022. every year, year to year, the median house prices have risen by more than 5.5%. vice president harris propose a $25,000 program for first-time homebuyers along with tax incentives for builders. so congresswoman slotkin should taxpayers be used to help taxpayers dollars i should say, the use to help first-time homebuyers? 60-second. >> i'd like to see details of that program but i can tell you what to do believe in just talking to michiganders and what has worked. right now we're helping to build an apartment building in okemos. it's public private money and don't put aside a certain number

of units for formal housing. up north will return workforce housing if your cop, nurse or teacher and you can't afford to live in traverse city how to make sure you can do the job and live not in our way but in the community? public-private partnership the gipper a lot of different ways we cane' do it but it's about increasing the housing stock pick we need more houses, , more production of houses. i'm not sure about the vice program because i think, i just have a look at the details. i can tell you what i voted on and it's expanding housing for people who were in the middle class. >> congressman rogers, you, too, will be getting this question. the question is, first of all, $25,000 enough to help somebody buying a first-time home? and shouldll we use federal tax dollars or taxpayers money to do that? >> if you talk to anybody in the housing business they will tell you by the federal government walking in a plopping down

$25,000 you've just increase the cost of housing live about. it doesn't work. the number one reason people can't afford homes, including in my own family, is the interest rates. people who want to go move up in a house can't do it because they're at (c)(3)%. by the way for not going out today seven or 8% on house. same with new homebuyers. they can't make up the difference between what used to be about 3% just four years ago now you see those housing rates so expensive. my opponent has voted 100% with the biden-harris agenda, 100%. if youha think about what that means, it means she's likely to go in and vote for this $25,000 and every other scheme that will only increase the cost of housing. if you want to get to the root of this we have to stop spending, , stop borrowing that money from countries like china, money we don't have, $35 trillion, and start bringing it back under control so we can get

interest rates down. that's the number one thing wee cann do. >> congresswoman slotkin, you have a 32nd rebuttal. if you could address the idea if you agree with the concept of using that money for first-time house buying. >> i want to correct the record forfo a second. it's on the issue by partisanship which is really important when you're running tv michigan senator. where very purple state sd watch the democrats lots of republicans. i was voted the 14th most bipartisan members of congress out of 435. i voted and split with my party more than 97% 97% of other democrats. an average a couple times of the month. in contrast to mr. rogers who was literally the width for his party, the guy could've went to vote with republicans. i believe deeply in bipartisanship and he is misstating the record. >> congressman rogers you can have your 30 seconds rebuttal and comment on what she just said. >> for the first three years the agenda that brought us high gas prices, high grocery prices, that brought us your electric

bill almost doubling, eggs about a 90% increase in cost came from that 100% voting with the biden-harris agenda. you can find it so dear and about there. i was in caucus, know how that works. when you talk about the issues that matter, 100%. so what is a disingenuous and deceptive is saying that you are, that you vote against your party att you vote all of the things that is raised other prices. >> want to go to our first viewer question, and happy to have this duty with social programs and happy to have my colleague amber here. she has that first question. and respect our first viewer question is from david in grand rapids. he wants to know what will your campaigns due to strengthen social security, medicaid and medicare? >> you heard the question.

what would you do to strengthen social security, medicaid and medicare. congressman rogersit you have 60-second. >> when i was on the day of 9/11 i had a presentation to to the budgetet committee, and the presentation was about makingan sure congress didn't continue to take money out of the trust fund to spend on other things. one of the first things we should be doing is protecting the social security trust fund. listen, my parents survived on social security and medicare. my in-laws are surviving on social security and medicare now. now. i know too many people in my family this is important. i argue the things we can do to bring down costs we should bring down costs across the board. medicare transparency is a big, big factor here. on social security, listen, it's in trouble. the current plan that we see coming out of washington, d.c. has let it ride until there's a 26% cut.

we have to get together in a bipartisan way to stop that from happening. i have seen no action to that end and is going to be a really important issue that we protect and preserve medicare and social security. >> congresswoman slotkin, our viewer wants to know what you will do to protect social security, medicare and medicaid figure 60-second. >> this is an area where we are very forgiving. we both of voting records on this. for me i believe it's essential and a personal issue for me to access to healthcare. it is extremely important you work your entire life, you have the safety of knowing you're not going to enjoy life in poverty. i believe in supporting medicare, supporting social security. mike rogers voted to either privatize or cut medicare and social security over and over and over again. he voted to raise the age of retirement. it's all in the record, just check the facts. it's not about what is going to do. it's what about is already done. it's not about the talking points when you sitting in front of ahe tv camera. it's about what you will do and

what you have done when you held the seat when you're in the job. so for me whether it's a long medicare to negotiate drug prices so we save something for medicare, whether it's changing retirement as wee do it, read if i get as he proposes, we couldn't be more different on this issue. >> congressman rogers you disagree with what congresswoman slotkin just adventure 30 seconds to rebut. >> this honest and deceptive. we've seen that over and over and over again. and on this issue it is exactly the same. i'm not sure she could pass a polygraph test in the caa anymore. when you look at what we have to do to protect it, fear and skerritt is not going to get it done. nor did it do the things she suggested i did. again, my family, i get it. my opponent came from a very wealthy family. i did not. we came for middle-class family here in michigan. we counter on social security. we counted medicare. my father had cancer. i had cancer when i was 19.

these issues are big in their personal and i will do everything to protect medicare and social security. >> now do you congresswoman slotkin. you have 30 seconds in rebuttalr >> look,: there's a need to thrw names around here are yellow at the pass at each other. we have record. he voted to raise the retirement age. that's not a fabrication. that's in his record, it's public. i'm not sure who remembers. he's been done afforded a few years but your record when you vote in congress is public. we know devoted to privatize or cut salsas did we know devoted five times against allowing medicare to negotiate drug prices like the most simple thing, just make sense to the common person. so for me is that about throwing namespace about deception or mention the cia. it's about what you did when you held the job. >> thank you both candidates. it's time for you to take a breath andnd maybe even a drinkf water. we are going to take a very quick break, and when we return we're going to talk about ev

battery plants in the state of michigan on debate night in michigan. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> back to her questions on debate night in michigan. i want you both to know these next couple ofh questions going to deal withqu the subject i'm sure that there are divisions of i want to try to be as clear as much information about how you feel about them as possible. sales for neds compared to what had been projected by some auto dealers are just not there still. in michigan we have plans for to make ev battery plants and they continue. we sing the downsizing of the blue oval. near battle creek. along with the plant proposed your big rapids that's a been embroiled in controversy. congresswoman slotkin here's the question. are ev battery plants right for michigan? if they are, why are they?

60 seconds. >> look, i do care what kind of car you want to drive. i don't care if it's a gas powered car or an easy. i live on a dirt road. i can't have an easy for the foreseeable future. what if you care about is who is going to build the next generation of vehicles. right? literally to the goingng to be s or china. right now china is eating our lunch on these vehicles. michigan has had experience but missing these trends. in the 1780s we said everyone loves the big car. no one will buy a little fuel-efficient vehicle and then the japanese and the cream skimming and ate lunch and would never make up at market share. i do not care what you want to drive that if the answer is who's going to build event i want those to be team america, not team china. michigan to buildld them. to me i don't understand this idea of seating that greta china. my opponent is happy to let them eat our lunch in places like europe and south america are unwilling to get. american autoworkers of the best

and they should make them. >> congressman rogers, are ev plants right for michigan? 60-second. >> i talked to a lot of these autoworkers as if said. i worked in the assembly line in michigan. i'll tell you what, they know more than was coming out of washington, d.c., 85% of everything processed in an electric field has to go through china. why in god's green earth we would see that auto market to the commerce party ofrk china is beyond me. my opponent has multiple times supported ev mandates trying to pick the cars better our company said to build and the cars you're going to have to buy. and by the way, that got us 2400 layoffs, 1000 layoffs at her motors come forward this. [talking over each other] about closing two lines. the ceo of forced ford cd said this is unworkable. it won't work for america. there's a better way to get where you want to go like hybrids. but we don't havee to plug it in

andbr you get to keep the autoworkers that are here in the state. about a million are reliant on building something a part of sunday for gasoline engine. why we would take 40% of the labor of the table is the army. >> congresswoman slotkin, 30 seconds rebuttal. >> i don't understand it for someone who claims to care about national security. if you're worried about ev being built abroad, worried about china having a supply chain, then come back and join us in michigan where we'd been trying to bring back our supply chains ever since covid. we all had our come to jesus and figured out we overextend ourselves into china so we of partsring all kinds back of all kinds of mine effect of all kinds of things important to the supply chain. i'm not going to give it up to china in my opponent seems to be okay with that. >> congressman rogers, you have rebuttal and again you all have some real differences are so you have 30 seconds to try to point out what those are.

>> my opponent talks in bringing thinks back. she signed a nondisclosure agreement to facilitate a chinese communist party company going up near big rapids to bring in chinese engineers, to build a factory that makes components of which 85% of the components in thaad battery have been processed in china. oh, by the way when it is fully operating take 40% of michigan autoworkers and gets rid of them.er why? that is a good plan winner of the things we could do. electric grid isn't ready to handle it. after thickset and make sure hybrids is an interim step before get to the next one. you'd be china by selling americans cars they want to buy. >> i want to give you 15 seconds. the caucus and said you signed an nda. asnd a been a point of contentin between the two of you. so my question 15 seconds, did you sign an nda? >> i have never signed an nda with any chinese government, chinese entity, chinese company at all. i found out about that plant

when it was in the paper. he repeats it. it is a lie. "the detroit news" andts every other new source credible has said it so. he should stop repeating it. >> congressman rogers i'm going to let you talk about that because answer this next question. you expressed concern over the potential ties to the chinese government. you did that including a rally that was very near and a slight side with is going to be built be built.d to what evidence do you have, can you document that the chinese company, feel free to 60 seconds to address the conversation. >> by the way, don't believe me, go to slot can nda.com. you will see the sign nda, number one. number two, the incorporation papers from this company clearly show it is affiliated and must abide by the chinese constitution including their ceo who is a member of, senior member of the chinese communist

party. .. problem. leon panetta said this will be used for espionage activities. there's no doubt in my mind why they are bringing chinese engineers here to michigan, and if you think that is crazy, the fbi just arrested five chinese nationals spying, which is pretty close to where this factory will be. we need to take a deep breath and step pretty better way where they want to go the chinese michigan been doing you have concerns about the appearance of chinese government involvement? will you say to the people near where the plant is being proposed to do let's. >> i've never signed with any chinese company or government, is a life.

you mess around when it comes to mike rogers of 2024 seems happy. n nda with any chinese government or company. he repeats it. it's a lie. the mike rogers of 2024 seems happy to do it. i'm sad about that. here's the thing. i was the one who wrote the legislation that said we should be able to ban the chinese from buying our farmland, manufacturing facilities. it's bipartisan legislation. i would love to have his support from it. you shouldn't have these companies buying our manufacturing or farmland without full national security vetting. we passed legislation to do it. this is where i stand on this issue. the reason he likes to repeat these lies is because when he left congress and went to work as a consultant, he was the chief security officer of at&t when they were actively working to get chinese companies into our telecoms. for me he's trying to distract from his own record of helping the chinese get into our cut --

telecommute acacian system. >> you have a 30 second rebuttal. >> the congresswoman knows that when i was in the private sector for the last 10 years, i had a security clearance. if i wanted to work for a chinese company which i would not, i couldn't do it. so she makes these charges. they are aspersions and it is unfortunate. this is the same member of congress who has been deceiving us on the nda. i never signed an nda. we find out she did. she has been involved. she did take money from chinese agents who were involved in the process -- >> i have to respond to this. what he just said honestly it is offensive. the mike rogers of 2014 that people thought they knew who cared about national security would say it should never be

divisive at the water's edge is now a completely different guy. to accuse people of these kinds of things, especially a cia officer is offensive and he needs to rethink how badly he wants this seat, how desperate he is to make a move like that. >> all right members. we are going to change the subject although i know there's a lot of passion on that and we could go on. the biden administration announced support for 1.5 billion dollars in federal loan guarantees to restart the palisade nuclear power plant in van buren county. if the nuclear regulatory commission gives the go-ahead, it would be the first restart of a nuclear power plant in u.s. history. congresswoman slotkin, do you support the plant and the use of federal taxpayer dollars for nuclear projects? you have 60 seconds. >> i supported actively the restart of the palisades plant

because we are going to need more energy. everybody knows we are going to need more energy as a country and we need the grid to be updated to deal with that. for that we need the whole menu. we need nuclear, traditional forms of energy, wind, solar, natural gas. the whole gambit. for me what's important is to take a very practical view of this. i worked at the pentagon. we mitigate risk by having diversity of sources. you never want to be just devoted to one energy source. god forbid you run out of fuel. so you have redundancy. for me and all of the above approach including nuclear is the way to do it. >> congressman rogers, do you support using federal dollars for that and other nuclear projects. >> we are going to have a 57% increase in need off of our electric grid.

everything from ai operation, cryptocurrency, you're going to need a lot more power. our electric grid can't handle it. nuclear and small modular nuclear reactors something of been working on for a while is exactly the way to do it. i get the huffing at the microphone. if you care about national security, you cannot see it our economic future of the commonest party of china. >> i agree. let's do it in michigan, man. let's do it. >> absolutely. you should have done it that way. bringing the opportunity for chinese companies to operate in the united states -- you cannot get promoted to the senate if you don't understand how the chinese operate. >> congresswoman slotkin, wehav. i don't think you have to set it

up for you. you both have expressed yourselves. >> the thing that's tough is in washington and the armed services committee, it's one of the most bipartisan committees that still exists. because it's on national security, it really remains a bipartisan place and the most bipartisan issue is china. it's where we worked together and banned things like huawei. it's where we took on the tiktok issue. it is sad that a guy who considers himself a national security guy can't see that we need to work together on this issue, not lie repeatedly. let's get to work, man. >> congressman rogers, 30 seconds. >> i will look for every opportunity to be bipartisan. but this is a fundamental flaw in judgment about what the chinese are doing to us. intellectual property f. the fact that they are buying homeland. my opponent has been there six

years. we haven't seen anything get done. an election year is great. you can be bipartisan in an election year. the slotkin agenda that made groceries more expensive, your kids can't buy a home, your car payments are high. 23% repossessions of cars up. >> let's go back to amber with another viewer question. >> in 2022 michigan voters approved prop three called reproductive freedom for all with a vote of nearly 57%. bonnie asks, why do you believe it is ok for the government to interfere in women's reproductive health decisions? >> that's bonnie who says why do you believe that the government should interfere in women's reproductive health decisions if you do? you have 60 seconds. >> thanks for the question. i think this is the most heart wrenching decision a woman will

ever have to make. i think those decisions are best made where her doctor, family and faith is. in 2022 to set aside what was a divisive issue across america, states got to make the determination. the people of michigan voted overwhelmingly to make abortion legal and part of the state constitution of michigan. i will do nothing when i go back to washington, d.c. to do anything that would change with the michigan constitution voted on by the people of michigan have given us that guidance to go back. >> congresswoman slotkin, do you believe it is ok for the government to interfere in women's decisions about reproductive health? >> i believe in a woman's right to choose. i did not support overturning roe v. wade and if a bill came in front of the senate to codify it i would support.

this is an important distinction between the two of us. mike rogers 22 years as a legislator voted for every single restriction, every bill that came across his desk to make it harder for women and to ban and some cases a woman's right to choose. 56 times in total. we checked the math. to me every single time he was casting" and was saying to women, he does not trust you to make your own decisions about your own family planning every single time. when it comes to our rights and protecting ourselves i think it is important that we have someone in the seat who does that. he voted and sponsored bills that would make it impossible to have ivf and contraception. if he does not trust us to protect our own rights, do not trust him. >> congressman, you've got 30 seconds. >> deceive and deception has been the constant theme of my opponent from the beginning of this campaign.

i have talked about making sure ivf is available for families. it's a very personal thing for these families and i support it 100%. what she is saying is i don't trust you people of michigan. she's going to go back to washington, d.c. and put our vote at risk with the rest of the country with states that don't agree with us. i'm telling you that this is such a personal issue and we have decided. this issue is decided as of 2022 i won't go back to washington -- >> i was in washington. you voted in florida. for some people this issue is a talking point. he has put his finger in the wind and said now i won't look good if i don't change on this issue. he has changed 30 years of being unilaterally pro-life and never breaking once with his party on this issue. it's not a talking point women.

it's our lives. it is whether we bleed to death in a parking lot. do not trust him. >> another viewer question from amber. >> more than 10 million migrants have crossed the border since 20 21 without authorization. according to estimates by the pew research center. michael from granville wants to know what is your plan for these 10 million immigrants? >> as we look at the question from michael, he makes a point. it took biden three years to come up with some executive orders like trump era remain in mexico policy. congresswoman slotkin, are you in favor of keeping those in place? >> our immigration system is broken. it has been broken for a long time and what's going on at the southern border no one is proud of. as someone who has protected the homeland my entire life as a job as a cia officer and pentagon

official, every country in the world has to write -- the right to know who's coming in its borders and what they are doing. we absolutely need to do more at the southern border and we are working on a deal to provide more resources to the bleeding ulcer that we have down there. to me, if you are not here legally, you should not be here. you should be removed to your home country. that's why i have done more border legislation than any member of congress. it's why we passed a bill system fentanyl. it's also if i can be honest part and parcel of a bigger conversation. we need legal immigration. our farmers need it. our folks in mackinaw needed. -- need it. >> congressman rogers, former president trump has called for mass deportation of some of these migrants that we are talking about who entered the

u.s. illegally. is that something you would support and how would you go about it? >> i'm very delighted to hear my opponent has had a conversion about border security. she has been there for six years and voted with biden harris 100%. and here's the thing. you can't voted against the wall. you can't vote against sanctuary cities. you cannot do the things you have been doing and allowing 10 million people to come into our country. we have spent something like 450 billion dollars on taking care of illegals. room and board and phones and health care. that's enough money to pay for every michigan teacher and every state trooper for 15 years. the fentanyl that's coming across the border has killed almost 3000 michigan citizens every year. this has been a catastrophe and we have seen absolutely nothing. saying you signed a few letters, this is something that should

get our blood going for what it is doing to the united states of america. i'm going to go back and i will fix and secure the border first thing. >> you said i was proudly part of team normal. i don't care if you are democrat or republican. just be normal. civil, reasonable. get in and solve your differences. we had a negotiation going on that would provide tremendous resources to the border. it was exactly what democrats and republicans want their leaders to be doing. sitting in a room, no twitter, no tweeting. mike rogers and his allies came in and said we would rather use it as a political talking point. i want to close the border. he wants to keep it open apparently. >> nobody was more bipartisan when i was chairman of the house of television. i know how to solve big problems. there has been no problem solved by my opponent in the entire six

years she has been back in washington. the bill she is talking about had bipartisan opposition. you can't make legal 2 million illegal immigrants every single year. look at the crime. look at the problems it creates. that was not a bill to solve the problem. it was a bill to exasperate and make permanent the problem. it was really a disaster of a bill. >> candidates, it is hard to believe, but we have come to closing statements. i'm going to ask you both to stick to 60 seconds on the news. we started with you, congresswoman slotkin. you will go with the first closing statement. you have 60 seconds. >> thank you for holding a really good debate. i think at the end of the day the issue comes down to trust. hoodoo trust to come and talk to you and go and fight on your behalf in washington. fight on behalf of the middle class, lowering your health care

costs, protecting your rights. it's the question of who do you trust. for me, we couldn't be more different on a bunch of issues. let me make a particular appeal to the republicans watching like my dad. the republicans who feel like their party has left them. you will always have an open door in my office. you will always have a place at the table because i want to hear from you. i am very transparent. if you come to me with a good idea, if you come to me with pushback, i'm going to be open-minded. i will even change my mind. if you are wondering where your party has gone, come and vote for someone who actually gives a crap about you. democrats and republicans civilly and decently. >> i was a young fbi agent working the sexual trafficking case. a young gal 15 years old ran away from home, got spotted by

organized crime, recruited, they made her a stone cold heroin addict within 30 days. we found her 30 days later. she has track marks between her fingers and toes. she gets in the car, stares out the window for 10 minutes, never saying a word. after about 10 minutes without looking at us she says, do you know why i didn't kill myself? why? because i knew somebody cared enough to come find me. when you look at the problems around this state, families are hurting from the policies that have come out of washington, d.c.. this choice could not be clearer. killing jobs or creating jobs. higher grocery prices, lower grocery prices. this was exactly the kind of choice we have to face. a closed border or a wide-open border that brings the problems of the south. thank you very much. i would appreciate your vote on

november 5, i will have your back come november. >> candidates both, thank you very much. i want you to keep in mind that even as we are here tonight, people are voting. so absentee ballots are available and if people are watching tonight, we encourage you to make a choice and vote. we have no vested interest in how you vote, but we think it's important that you do vote. early in person voting will begin october 26 and election day is november 5. i want to make a personal note to all the people that helped make this program work for this past hour. i couldn't tell you many -- how many people in and outside of this building have been working nonstop to make it happen. having a politician make a decision to do a debate in the heat of a campaign is not easy. you have other considerations. sometimes a debate may not begin your best interest. sometimes you might not have

time. to all of our viewers tonight, we urge you to vote thanks again for being able to join us for this very special hour and i hope and informative one. we will say good house, senate and governor bates across the country. racist from your states future him power in washington. follow coverage from local to national hr online at c-span.org/campaign. watch tuesday november 5 live election results. still, the unfiltered view of

politics. powered by cable. ♪♪ later today lusterless another discusses his latest book, the ongoing war in the middle east in ukraine 2024 presidential election posted by the washington post, watch live noon eastern on the spent two. c-span now, free mobile app or online at c-span.org. >> today 2024 j.d. vance part of the town hall. live:0 p.m. eastern on c-span2, c-span now and online at c-span.org. marc goldwein ate table, the senior vice president and senior policy director to

cost -- talk about the candidates' tax and spending plans. let's talk about the tariffs and trade policies and get into what each of the candidates has said could former president wants to impose a 10% to 20% tariff on imports from all countries. 60% on tariffs from imports from china. the vice president wants to implement eight targeted and strategic tariff to support american workers. can you talk about each plan? guest: fort 60 years essentially in the united states has been reducing tariffs to the point where president trump took office there were barely any. he implemented a number of tariffs in the first term, mainly on china and on certain goods like washing machines for example. president harris mostly wants to keep the trump tariffs. president trump wants to

dramatically expand the tariffs in the second term and talked about at 10% or 20% baseline tariff and 60% on china and retaliatory tariffs on us, 100% on autos. he threw out a lot about numbers but they do speak to a general direction which is you have to raise a lot of revenue from taxes on imports. host: how much revenue? guest: we have figured out $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion over a decade. it is a tremendous amount of money, anything in the trillions is a key source of revenue under his plan. host: what would be the economic impact? guest: a lot of people would look at negative. when you increase the tariffs you increase from -- on

americans. but the second is when we impose tariffs on other countries, they impose tariffs on american companies and that hurts the selling as well. so the tax foundation has looked at it and said it could be less if they are smooth or more if there is a trade war. host: what does that do to revenues? guest: we have a look at this, the first order effect is the 10% and then the 60% on china, 2.7% of revenue but produces output and then we his income taxes and payroll taxes but it won't eat all of the revenue so maybe it will eat out one quarter or 1/5 of revenue gain. host: you said the vice president wants to keep with the former president did in the

first administration on the tariffs. how much revenue did that bring in? guest: that was bringing in more like $400 billion over the same timeframe. the vice president says that is her base and talking about tinkering from their, where we were in 2021 president trump left office. host: what does that do to our national deficit? where were the numbers then? guest: i think the general rule is small taxes, small impact and big taxes big impact. the tariffs were relatively modest. we thought some areas like washers and dryers. we think we saw some reduction in the growth of gdp. the best estimates are 0.2% or 0.3%. when they are a small, it is hard to separate what is going on from the tax host: cuts.

-- tax cuts. host: where is the national debt now and what has been the biggest driver? guest: if you earn a lot of income, you can afford a big mortgage. you don't earn very much you can't afford a big mortgage. same for the united states. we can afford the debt with the size of the economy but generally it is half the size. today it is as large as the economy, 99% and within a few years will -- we will be at a record level. the record set in world war ii is a hundred and 6% and we've never passed it. and over time it is just going to keep rising. the interest rate will keep rising because we have a very expensive health and retirement programs, social security, medicare and medicaid and those costs go up and as more people retire and health care rises. the tax revenue coming in is

flat and in some ways has been declining because every few years politicians come in and cut taxes. host: what about the 2017 cox cuts -- tax cuts during the trump revenue? guest: we cut the corporate rate to 21% from 35% and cut individual rates and expanded the child tax credit. it cost to $20 over a decade. and the tax cuts in large part were temporary. most of us over an eight year period ended at 2025. if we were to extend those in full it would be another $4 trillion through 2035. host: what impact has that had on the debt? guest: if you add to trillion dollars of tax cuts, that is to trillion more to the debt. if we do another at trillion dollars that is another $4 trillion. if you look at the candidates'

platforms, huge reason both candidates are projected to add to the debt is that they want to extend large parts of the tax cuts. host: this is from the former preside's campaign. extend or expand 2017 tax cuts, lower corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%, eliminate federal income tax on tips and social security income and eliminate taxes on overtime pay. talk about those. guest: they are all very expensive. president trump started out as you mentioned with calling for an extension of the tax cuts. that is $4 trillion. then he got into going on the campaign trail and promising a new tax cut, no taxes on tips, over time social security benefits, no salt tax. 15% not for all corporations but

corporations that produced domestically. on top of that, he wants more spending. this is trillions of dollars of tax cuts. a $20 to $9 trillion of tax cuts and not only will they add to the deficit but in some cases they will significantly weaken social security. those taxes help fund the social security and medicaid programs. payroll taxes on overtime and tips help to fund social security. if the president's agenda would be enacted in full, not only would it at a lot to the debt but would shorten the life of the social security and medicare trust fund. host: in her life right now is that what? guest: social security is expected to round of reserves in nine months. and under the former president it could be eight or nine years. host: ensuring no taxes on individuals making less than 400,000, eliminate federal income tax on tips, raise the

corporate tax rate from 21% to 28 percent, raise capital gains rate and impose new tax on unrealized capital gains for those worth $100 million or more. what would this do? guest: vice president harris' overall tax plan, she appears to want to extend large parts of the trump taxes but for the 98% making $400,000 or less, she wants to extend them. that is $3 trillion. so the child tax credit right now is $2000, she wants to bring it up to $3000 and for some children, new ones up to $6,000. she wants to expand the earned income tax credit and wants a 25,000 dollars first-time home tax credit and no taxes on tips. this is a couple more $20 worth ofevenue loss. on the flip side, she has

embraced the tax credits from president biden's, this means higher corporate taxes, higher taxes on individuals especially focused on higher capital gains rate. it is not a wealth tax but attacks on wealthy americans on the unrealized gains of income. overall her tax agenda is much higher taxes on the rich and corporations to pay for lower taxes on some elements of the middle class. host: doesn't it actually pay for it? guest: if you remove the extension spot but we don't think it adds up. not just the tax cuts but the spending increases. we think the tax increases follow $3 trillion short. when we looked at the plan as a whole, the base case, and there

is a lot of uncertainty because this campaign and not legislative language. what we think she is saying is her plan would add $3.520 over the debt over a decade and we think president trump's would add $7 trillion. host: what would he do on spending? guest: he said we are going to cut on spending but short on specifics. he says he wants to eliminate the department of education. he has talked about prescription drug savings but says -- has removed it from his website. he is talking about the real savings and talking about reduce. and we know that his plans would reduce some fraudulent reporting but it doesn't add to a whole lot. a lot of what he wants to do is

increase spending on defense including higher pay for our troops including a u.s. iron dome. he has talked about more money for immigration enforcement. you look at president trump's overall agenda, spending increases and cuts but really it is mostly tax agenda and tax cuts and mostly tariff agenda. host: marc goldwein is here to talk about the candidates' tax and spending proposals. call in now. the republican line is (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, independents (202) 748-8002. you can text and include your first name, city and state to (202) 748-8003. what do each of them propose on the social security and medicare and savings? guest: social security is only

nine years from insolvency. the benefits have to be cut we don't have enough money. and we have to cut that and for one year for a couple that would be $16,000. president trump would make it worse by reducing revenue coming in and getting ready taxation in social security benefits and cutting various payroll taxes. he would also increase the tariffs that would lead to higher inflation and both candidates but especially president trump would restrict immigration. president trump would do significant deportation which would hurt social security. host: can you explain that? how does it hurt social security? guest: some pay taxes legally and some pay illegally but the

money goes into the trust fund to pay benefits and if you were to deport a million people from coming in, that reduces our payroll tax collection and would advance the insolvency data of social security. so president trump's agenda as a whole, we are still working on the mall but instead of talking about 2033 would be talking about earlier. vice president harris has talked vaguely about how the rich need to pay their fair share but has no plan to save social security. and no plan is the same as endorsing 821% cut in nine years. -- and no plan is the same as endorsing a 21% cut in nine years. vice president harris has talked

about doing faster in negotiations so we are currently negotiation the price -- negotiating the price of some drugs and she wants to do more and wants to get more generic drugs on the scene and things like that but is also talked about expanding medicare, covering vision and hearing and nursing care for people at home and that will cost extra money. so vice president harris has things that will cost money and save and president trump doesn't have anything in the agenda right now for medicare. host: how have previous presidents done, if anything, and medicare what happens to medicare of the cost keeps going up and up? guest: medicare is 12 years from insolvency. so we are in trouble with medicare as well. the last three presidents or for

president, maybe the last six have had plans to reduce the cost of medicare and it has been a lot of overlap between them. president trump in his first term and president obama both agree that we should pay hospitals and doctors offices the same for the same kind of care. they want to reform the weight part d is performed. there is a lot of agreement that we are overpaying providers in some areas. there is agreement on how to solve it but democrats and republicans essentially propose the same thing and it is rare that they come together and say let's solve the problem. if we just took the policies both sides agreed to put them into law would help. host: jack in virginia,

democratic caller. caller: excellent talk this morning. i see that you focus on the spending side. can you comment on the revenue generation side. heard donald trump say he is going to drill. how realistic is that in compensating for the spending plan? also analysis on harris. and in terms of foreign policy, and in terms of the foreign policies may help to pay or generate revenue or less spending to compensate for the plans. if you could speak to those things i would appreciate it. guest: both candidates want to cut a lot of taxes. both candidates propose raising a lot of taxes. president trump mainly through tariffs and vice president harris through taxes on corporations and higher earners. you mentioned drilling for oil,

something president trump talks about a lot. that could help elevate gdp and could generate leasing revenue for the u.s. government but we are talking pennies on the dollar's relative to payroll tax. income and payroll taxes is where it is mostly generated and most of the oil is either privately owned and privately refined at least. if you look at the state like alaska that is oil-rich and has a few people, it can be a big share of their revenue but for the united states at large it will not make up a large part of the whole. host: and aid to foreign countries? guest: we spend 1% of the budget , if you count military to percent on foreign aid but a lot of that is for stuff that we actually need it domestically as well. let's say we cut that in half, we are talking about a couple

hundred billion dollars of savings over a decade. it is not going to fix the debt situation. doesn't mean we shouldn't scrutinize. we should scrutinize every part of the budget but it is upsetting for taxpayers when the federal government is wasting money and so if we are going to do the tough things and say the income tax has to go up work social security benefits will have to change, we better be going hard after the waste. it is such a small share of the budget. host: and the big solutions will be what? guest: social security, medicare, medicaid and revenue. defense is a large pot and we have to look there as well. there is no reason to think we don't have tons of waste in the defense budget. host: and we don't have audits of some of those. guest: the law says they are supposed to get an audit and they have not successfully done one yet. host: florida, jesse,

republican. caller: to topics and i would like the guest's explanation. how can you have an import tax and not have inflation? it seems to me if you raise the price of goods coming into the country you are going to raise the price to the consumer and that is going to cause inflation again. m the other topic is the immigration talk. i don't understand how we could deport millions of people who some of them are contributing to the revenue of the country and not affect the economy. both of those issues are important to me. host: ok let's hear the response. guest: you are exactly right. we have done the analysis of both the import taxes and

immigration. when it comes to the import tariffs, given the size, they are likely to increase inflation but maybe not permanently but one time. if they don't it will be because the exchange rates have adjusted substantially or the federal reserve who has stepped in and said we are so concerned that we will keep the interest rates higher. and then instead of increasing inflation it will reduce. there is no way to get around it. either the terrace will increase prices are they will reduce output and the price of everything else will start to equalize. when it comes to immigration, we analyzed both plans and both want to restrict immigration in some way. vice president harris wants to strengthen the borders. president trump plant will lose 350 billion.

high-end estimates could be lower but the main reason is because immigrants take taxes. we have fewer people we will get fewer tax revenue. host: what taxes are they paying? guest: many immigrants are either once here get some kind of legal status so they can work for they have stolen a social security number or made up. the most common is 000's and sometimes they just are checked. and that person is owed a lot of social security benefits because maybe billions of dollars in taxes paid under that social security number. we are receiving income tax revenue but when it comes to the federal finances, immigrants and

up in the schools and hospitals and etc. but at the federal level, new immigrants are a big net gain to the finances. host: at the state level, what taxes are they paying? guest: the same plus sales taxes. and there also collecting more government services. there are not a lot of federal services that go to undocumented immigrants but a lot of state and local. host: ted is in minnesota, independent. your question or comment. caller: i am just curious, this exploded three and a half years ago and it has been running wild. they are receiving debit cards and free medical and driver's

licenses which will actually double as an id which will very likely be used for voting, let's face it, that was all by design the same is with the oil. exploration and drilling stopped when biden took office and the big push was electric cars and lithium and all about china. we have real turmoil here. i don't think it was a good explanation on his revenue versus cost. host: why don't you agree with the numbers? why are you skeptical? caller: we have millions of people coming in. the schools are flooded. host: marc goldwein? guest: the schools flooded is a

great place to start. that is local. that is state. we have looked at this and the congressional budget office has looked at this and you are right, we have a huge surge of immigration in recent years and that is why both candidates have put into a big part of their platforms stemming and in one point reducing that. what i focused on was the economic at the federal level and we have a lot of questions that need to be answered about what is the best immigration policy but it is important to know the numbers behind it. host: talk about childcare because both candidates are addressing that. former president suggesting tariffs can help fund raising childcare costs and the vice president proposing raising the child tax credit is much as 3600 and giving families of newborns

at thousand dollars. what is the impact and how did tariffs pay for raising childcare costs. guest: i am not clear what president trump childcare plan is. tariffs could help fund but we wouldn't see what it was funding. he did propose stuff on paid leave but didn't really propose childcare. child -- vice president harris has alluded to a childcare plan that was enacted by congress go back better and that would create subsidies. she said she would catch childcare costs at 7% of income. i take that meaning for some people it would be 7% of income. the legislation i reference cuts off at higher income. but this could be a very expensive government program and we could talk about the five hundred billion dollars or half $1 trillion or more just to fund

the childcare programs and not sure how it would work in practice. something like universal preschool, we know state and government know how to do that and have elementaries and preschools but it is about more buildings and teachers. the subsidy is creating new infrastructure and would be a tremendous challenge to get it rolling. what she said as she wants to cap childcare costs at 7%. host: degree feel, south carolina, democratic caller. caller: -- to greenville, south carolina, democratic caller. caller: i would like to ask one question about donald trump. incident -- are you making the point that he is the former president?

caller: your guests keep calling him president. i will enter the question, president of what. guest: it is traditional that once prison has been present or ambassador or senator, we use the name in front of it, sometimes we as former president but sometimes i shorten it and i would do that for any individual. host: what did president trump do on the debt in the first term and what was the impact of his policy during the first four years. host: we have estimated this. but president trump during his four years in office signed into law legislation executive action that audited $8 trillion. to train was tax cuts we talked about. there was another roughly 2

trillion dollars of bipartisan spending increases on defense and nondefense and other areas. host: was that covid money? guest: that was before covid that was for 20 before covid for ordinary spending. if you cut taxes and you cut spending that is not what happen. we cut taxes by $2 trillion in in 2018 we increased spending by almost as much in 2018 and 20 in 19. -- in 2018 and 2019? guest: some of it was the bipartisan budget. the department of defense wanted $45 billion a year and president obama said we will give the department of defense 45 billion and nondefense 35 billion. and that is what they were working on.

they kept beating each other up and then when you put that over 10 years, that is a lot of money. it has increased dramatically. then covid came along. president trump did not want anything for non-defense but ultimately they bid it up to be 100 $50 billion, more anyone had asked for. president trump signed more into law in nondefense then president obama had asked nondefense by about double. he added $4 trillion plus before covid and then covid came along and there was unanimous support for protection for businesses, unemployment checks and another

$4 trillion. and that was a $20 trump added to the debt. host: let's talk about the biden administration. guest: president biden did not add quite as much but still pretty substantial, $4.5 trillion. he came in with the american rescue plan which was covid relief but late stage covid relief and at that point most with saint maybe we need a few hundred billion dollars more but not too trillion. we had the bipartisan structure deal that was not paid for and they said it was. we had the chips and signs act, not paid for at all. other increases in defense and nondefense spending, partially offsetting that we had the fiscal responsibility act which put caps on defense and nondefense and affective mention all of the executive actions mainly around student debt.

host: sheila in massachusetts, republican. caller: the question i would like to know, is we have something like 10 million in new arrivals here and it said the cause is $3000 a month from the federal government and ngos and whoever, it is our money they are getting, $3000 a month times 10 million people and add that up and times it by 12. where is that money coming from? and why is it always social security, medicaid going broke but you never hear about food stamps or anything else going broke. why don't we just cut down on the surplus given to the government for the extras that they get for congress like when they gave the rays for people in

congress to use more money for their office expenditures? host: i am going to have marc goldwein respond to you in and we will get your thoughts. guest: two different questions there. i am not sure what the $3000 a month refers to but it is possible it is state and local money and possible that some is federal. but when we look at the federal level, on net the average immigrant is paying more in taxes whether legally or otherwise than they are collecting in federal benefits. when they talk about social security and medicare going broke, some programs are funded in their social security, medicare party and highways. there are some finances. social security and medicaid are supposed be paid for through payroll taxes but the issue is they are falling short and they are all running out of money.

the cost of food stamps has gone up dramatically. one of the items president biden added to debt was to executive action he essentially increased the cost of food stamps and there is no question there are costs there. there are costs related to congressional junkets and the big money happens to be in the programs. host: when you say it big money because you save money for foreign aid, 1% of the federal budget. what percentage are we talking about versus the percentage of the budget for the big spenders? guest: social security is 1/5 medicare is 1/6. social security, medicare and other health care, almost half of the budget those. host: half of the budget? guest: half of the budget for

those and they are growing rapidly. defense is also large but growing at a slower case. the programs are large and growing rapidly. host: sheila, what do you think about this, programs or you want to see the savings are single-digit percentage of the budget whereas other programs when you at the up together, almost 50% of the budget? caller: it is a penny here and a penny there adds up to a lot of pennies in the end. this immigration thing has got to stop. we cannot afford to be supporting 10 million immigrants to the tune of $3000 a month, no matter where that money comes from. we are paying for it one way or another and it is wrong. i never got an extra $3000 a month. it costs me almost $2000 a year more to support myself.

i can't recoup that money. host: we will take your point. guest: i agree with the penny here, penny there. what we need to do could we have a debt approaching record levels, interest costs are larger than the programs. we need a whole of government approach would be take a serious look at waste throughout government and lower the cost of health care, hopefully by lowering the costs but not cutting benefits. where we look at again social security solvent. a lot of it will be a penny here and a penny there and i do agree with that approach and we should start with the waste. how the american people going to access the bigger changes as they still see waste. host: why are the interest rates the third-biggest driver?

guest: interest costs were low around 2020 because interest rates were low and they have exploded have exploded-exploding giveaway spend 900 billion dollars last year on interest. the first is interest rates have gone up. the federal government is paying higher interest rates and the second is we are paying interest on a lot of debt which has exploded. so the higher rate on higher debt means interest rates are killing the rest of the budget. host: who are we paying this to? guest: a lot of it is to americans who hold the funds and also abroad to if not friendly countries. our largest foreign debt holder is china. a lot of this is held abroad and domestically, it is americans are giving money to the federal government by buying bonds and not by in the private sector in

the private sector and that means less machinery, software and new inventions and over time that slows up growth. host: warren, silver spring, maryland, democratic caller. caller: what benefits do immigrants get at the local level or federal level. so i wolves from cameroon and until my asylum came through, i couldn't get anything from federal i got it at the state. i also have three people in my house that have filed for asylum and cannot visit a doctor's office and we have to pay out-of-pocket for them. that is question number one. isn't itt true but it's a result

of high demand and low supply because so low will make money and stores a pack of people by more so supply cannot demand. they increase prices so he wants to reduce inflation, people leave their job so demand decreases in prices should go down ...

and supply wasn't there yet because of joblessness and other supply chain chaos from covid. now inflation is finally coming down. it's not at the federal reserve 2% target but we are approaching. both candidates list reigniting inflation, reigniting inflation by adding a lot to the deficit the way thaty re-boost that demand and doesn't create enough new supply to equalize it out. n new jersey, independent. caller: something that always bothered me was the federal government, the taxpayer ends up

paying the salaries for the government employees. if you could explain that. guest: job numbers are estimated by an independent agency and they count jobs including federal state and local jobs. that is important for statistical purposes because we want to understand how many people are working and how many people are not working. what it doesn't tell us is the fiscal impact and if we were to have a huge surge in federal employment, that would have a big cost to the taxpayer but different sets of numbers. once that focuses on the overall number of jobs in the economy and a separate set is on federal finances. the federal finances are not doing good and -- >> we are leaving this program here for live coverage of the "washington post" interview with award-winning investigative journalist and author bob woodward on his latest book "war." live coverage here on c-span2.

>> richard nixon is out today with an inside account of president biden's handling of ukraine and israel. the name of the book is "war." joining me now is bob woodward. bob, welcome back to "washington post live." >> thank you. good to see you. >> you, too. congratulations on yet another book. so bob, as you well know war chronicles three simultaneous events. russia's invasion of ukraine and the war on ukraine escalating violence in the middle east and serious political unrest here in the united states. why these three and which by these three do you see as the most serious long-term threat? >> i think they are all threats but why these three, they are interconnected. it's the world we live in and it

represents the hazard, the hazards that we face as a country. really, it's solid, jonathan, if you will bear with me. i recently want to read something from the book that senator lindsey graham of south carolina said. he said trump supported but also somebody who can be hard on trump. but he makes this overall conclusion. trump represents a real part of the american family. it's not a wound. it's part of who we are. and a lot of people don't like that. i think trump is grotesque problem for our country. but he is part of the country. as we know from the polling and all of the discussion and

coverage, he has support and he may wind up winning in the next election. so we have to treat him very seriously. we need to look at, you know, what's trump all about? and i think trump is a hazard and is definitely the wrong person for the job. but the overall reasons are, and i think they are so important to understand, and the first is that trump has no plan. he does not plan. when i interviewed him the last year of his presidency, for nine hours, i kept saying what's the plan? what's the plan? on dealing with covid. and he would say things like oh, don't worry at all. i've have a plan in 106 days.

said wait a minute, 140,000 1400 people are dying in the country already. it is a pandemic. i'll have a plan in 106 days. i was so stunned i i couldn't figure out what it was. of course that turned out to be election day. that's all trump was concerned about. he was not concerned about the people in the country. >> you know, you, i was scribbling down notes. you said something about donald trump getting to understand the man. i bring that up because you begin the book by writing about a 1989 interview you and carl burstein, your watergate parter did, with trump at trump tower. i want to play a little snippet of a dodgy about on the other side. let's listen. >> the other week i was watching a boxing match in atlantic city. the champion lost that he was defeated by somebody who's a

very good, was expected to win. they interviewed the box after the match. how did you do this? how did when? he said i just went with the punches. i thought that was a great discussion because it's about life just as much as about boxing. go with the punches. >> so bob, , i wanted to play te because i just wonder what you find so instructive about that quote from trump today. how this roll with the punches he said 35 years ago, how that might help us understand who he is today, are made even how he got here today. >> very important question. first, it is 35 years ago, and at this time trump was a real estate king in new york city, had nothing to do with politics. in fact, i asked him in this

interview, kind of pushed off. but you see in this interview, carl burstein and myself did. carl ran into them at some point -- carl bernstein -- and said let's do an interview. so we interviewed him in trump tower. all real estate but there were theme lines that trump presented that reflect who he is. and one of them was clearly how do you deal with people. and he said, well, you either be a killer or be candy. in other words, kill people or be sweet, or both. and you look at trump's career in politics today as he is running for president again, and

you see those traits, killer, candy. >> he also said in that interview, cork, i like having great friends and great enemies. so which one motivates him more, the great friends with a great enemies? >> all, such a great -- i don't know but he's driven by both. he wants to have friends. again, it's candy. he is quite willing to kill people, not literally but politically with his rhetoric and we now see this. so again we see this trump out there, no plan, i mean, really literally has no plan. he wings it every day. and if you follow him, he really has no allies. he has, , there is no team.

one of the things we learned in trying to understand and write about politics is the team is essential. you don't do anything alone. trump does everything alone. people who work with him, now it's down to you never know, when he was president he had five defense secretaries. joe biden has had one. most presidents have one or two. five, because trump cannot work or build a team. and jonathan, you have producers to work with you, right? >> right. >> you need them. >> yeah. hell yeah. >> in fact, if you went in to the office and they were on

strike or something, say were not doing this anymore, you would be traumatized, right? >> right. i don't even know how to turn on the camera. >> exactly. no questions and who is the guest going to be and how do we work? now, can i do something very different here? >> yeah. >> claire mcmullen who is been with me for a number of books is a lawyer from australia, and knows all this material better than i do, quite frankly. can i introducer? >> absolutely. >> okay. >> where are you? >> here is where. >> how are you? >> hello. we can at least, we can at least see you. an opportunity for me and for the folks were watching really,

claire, to say thank you because without you, bob is nothing. >> that is absolutely true. >> he still works 14 hour days. i don't know any other 81-year-old that could do what he does. he is the most dedicated, determined reporter constantly driving for the truth and to ask the questions that you see in this book, and the public interest, and what people want to know. i mean, he so humble. he would never talk about his work ethic but i've never seen anything like it. and to want to still be doing this day in and day out. he writes in the book about me saying i'm going to keep going but he's the one that just keeps going and going and going. >> yes. >> go ahead, bob. >> claire was not here, okay. let's let you -- thereby,

claire. >> taking notes, slipping cards to me and so forth. but working at the post for 52 years, jonathan, this idea, you never do anything alone. back in watergate it was with carl bernstein. the editors at the post, ben bradlee. ben bradlee in the movie all the president's men played by jason robillard, it's like they were twins, exactly, who bradley was, kind of aggressive style let's get to the bottom of the story where working on. giving you running room. in watergate a lot of the senior national reporters came to dan and said why are you letting these kids, , bernstein and woodward, do this story? he loved it. he said, well, let's see how

they do. and he did. he gave us that freedom and he not only let carl and myself partner, but we partnered with the editors. >> thank you for introducing us to claire. and remind everybody that the jobs that we do, it's not, you might be the face but there are a lot of people behind us helping us get things off the ground here you mentioned earlier how donald trump has no friends, which i want to bring up a relationship that trump has had to write about in the book. and that is that trump/putin relationship. i bring that up because there's a question that we have from an audience member by the name of rick unger from pennsylvania. rick wants to know what do you think trump admires about putin?

>> well, trump, trump says it. i admire putin, he loves the autocracy, he loves the idea that putin has all of this power. he's almost envious and, of course, this is part of the danger. we live in a democracy, and lots of other candidates and presidents will talk about the power of democracy. trump talks about the power of autocratic authority, that you can just decide when you're in that position. he admires it. the many times trump says, you know, i get along fine with putin. which yes, he's right. it's good to get along with them, but who is vladimir putin? vladimir putin is the adolf hitler of our century.

the invasion of ukraine is the equivalent to what hitler did, trying to take over a country that's free, and doing it in, hundreds of thousands of people have died in this war. this is a war for what purpose? it is for the purpose of vladimir putin saying, going back in, i mean you read what he writes, what he says. it's really insane that somehow ukraine doesn't exist. of course it exists. it really should be a part of russia, so i'm going to take it, and he invades here there are some scenes in the book before the invasion where the intelligence people in the united states and in the biden white house say wait a minute,

this is crazy. he's not going to do this. and people are going back and forth, rightly so. is this possible? of course. he did it. he has now put, think of all the terror and war in the world. what's going on in ukraine invasion is so serious. one of the things i did in reporting is talk to the polish president, and geographically there's poland and ukraine and russia and he is quite upfront about it. he said look, if russia takes ukraine, now i'm going to have a 300-mile plus border with russia and ukraine controlled by russia. this is his nightmare, and it refers back to what happened in

the '30s with adolf hitler. and putin is really this, you dig into this and i'm able to talk to intelligence authorities, people have information about him. and the conclusion is, not only is he an authoritarian, he's sadistic. and he gets a joint out of this. and so -- joy -- so take vladimir putin and the threat to the world series. >> let's talk more about vladimir putin of the threat to the world seriously because in "war" to write about the challenges facing the biden administration before and after russia's invasion. and among them was keeping russia from actually using a tactical nuclear weapon against ukraine.

how close did russia, to doing such a thing? >> well, it started out intelligence kind of well, , mae there's a five or 10%. it got down to 50%, and in the white house they were sitting there looking at this and they realize the national security officials for president biden. this is a coin flip, a coin flip. one of the officials key people in the biden white house is saying, my god, this is what it must have been like in 1962 during the cuban missile crisis. living on the edge. this is really a serious, serious threat. and biden and, you know, there are scenes in the book. this is a very long seen. i'm not going to read it, though

i'm tempted to read it, that, and again this is the planning that trump never does in the national security team in the white house. they plan and they had this intelligence, the threat of a tactical nuclear weapon is coming. >> bob, read it. you don't have to read everything but folks are watching i'm sure would love to hear your read from the book on this. >> okay. so what happens is lloyd austin, the defense secretary, somebody not well known, i tell you, we have learned so much about him in this book. so austin calls up his equivalent in russia, the defense secretary shoko, and says just right now, we know you're contemplating the use of

tactical nuclear weapons in ukraine. and he laid out the consequences and the consequences are actually quite brilliant about saying look, this isn't just going to be the use of one tactical nuclear weapon. it's been 80 years since nuclear weapons have been used. and he's trying to say don't do it. and it's a very, i would love to read it all but, but you know, if you see it in the book, so here's what happened. so he's laying this out in a very direct way, and shoigu, the defense minister of russia says to austin, i don't take kindly to being threatened. austin -- one of the most powerful minds i've seen in 52 years of journalism, austin says

to his counterpart in russia, mr. minister, i am the leader of the most powerful military in the history of the world. i don't make threats. [laughing] >> you know -- >> this is the real life under the scenes, behind the scenes, and you see this kind of real struggle to keep from the world from spinning out of control. because should russia, should putin order the use of tactical nuclear weapons, the world changes. in the biden administration they obviously don't want to have it happen on their watch, but they realized if it does happen, they

defined an era. for 80 years, no nuclear weapons have been used, and here's putin, putin who is not only sadistic, but totally in charge, threatens of this, and so quite rightly, the conditions there quite a minute, why would he used tactical nuclear weapons? and they get into the many explicit scenes about the worry in russia. they have a doctrine that they can use tactical nuclear weapons if they face or experience what they call catastrophic battlefield loss. other words, there are scenes in ukraine where the russians are

really threatened with catastrophic battlefield loss. and under their doctrine, use tactical nuclear weapons and this is what biden is trying to talk him out of. and thank god that catastrophic situation eased, and there are scenes where american generals are talking to the russian generals to say okay, now you don't have to use tactical nuclear weapons. and want to prevent this, but also its, it's kind of this realization that comes with every presidency, and i've tried understand and write about. and that is that we're bringing not just our action but we will define an era, and it is that

era includes use of tactical nuclear weapons for the new world. >> in relation to the threat that you read from, the quote you read from defense secretary austin to his russian counterpart, the other key thing is not just the words. it's the secretary to voice, very deep theatric that's why reacted the way i did because i had his voice in my ear. you don't take it seriously after that, i don't know how anyone would. let's shift from vladimir putin to benjamin netanyahu. you reported extensively about the escalating conflict in the middle east, and president biden's frustration in their dealings with israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. you quote president biden saying, i'm going to put on the screen, because there's some

language in here, that son of a bitch bibi netanyahu he is a bad guy. he's a tad effing guy. what does that quote tell you about the relationship between president biden and prime minister netanyahu? >> really important question. and it's that tense, and even gets to another point where, and this is president biden speaking to his close aides in the white house, saying that netanyahu is an effing liar turkey even goes further and says, 18 of the 19 people who work for netanyahu are liars. total dis- trust. but here's the strategic geostrategic reality. with our allies of israel.

biden sticks to that but biden's policy really is pro-israel -- >> i think we lost bob's audio somehow. >> i'm sorry. did it come off? >> did was use audio or i just can't hear? say something, bob. >> pardon? >> there you go. i think i can hear you now. go ahead, bob. sorry about that. >> okay. so this worry couldn't be greater, and netanyahu opened internally, not publicly, with his distrust and his frustration with netanyahu. and to say to his closest aide, this man is a wire.

so there's that distrust, but at the same time israel and the united states our allies. they need each other. but to have this broken personal distrust really drives part of it. and as we are going through what's going on in the middle east now, it's not, you don't necessarily hope or think it should be coming, but it should be a relationship of deeper trust rather than this kind of mistrust. >> , one more question on this before i start asking about the 2024 election. for a lot of people the actions of the israeli military represent, seems to represent a lot of influence of the united states over israel.

i'm just wondering, has the united states lost influence, or is it that the relationship between the president of the united states and the prime minister of israel is in bad shape and that is what's driving this? >> well, no, i think it is a manifestation of it, that, look, we've got to do something to help israel. that's united states policy. that's biden's policy. i think it would even be, you know, if somebody else were president of vice president harris or even donald trump, that would be part of the calculus. the closer you get to the detail of this as a reporter, you see that the drama behind the scenes is not emotional. it's strategic, that it, that we

are hanging in this period of such great uncertainty. so at the end of the book i try to draw some conclusions, namely involving the ukraine war, the middle east. this is going to be right there on the new president's desk, whoever it is. the tensions and the hostility and the risk and the violence is not going away. >> let me bring in another audience question, sort of tangentially related from sarah pinto in florida. she asks what is one piece of advice for vice president kamala harris to help salvage the worldview of u.s. foreign policy? >> well, you know, as reporters, or at least not an opinion reporter, try not to give

advice. she's got a really, really hard job. and you need to think about the vice presidency. it is, i mean, she is fortunate and i would argue from the detail i have, that she's gone to president school. she gained a lot of experience, seeing the sidelines. there are cases even, there's one case where the united states defeats a massive attack from iran, not just the united states but israel and other allies. and they are having come in this scene, national security council meeting at this moment and harris is up on the screen. she's not there in the white house but it's a secure screen.

this is a very difficult moment. and, but it's been the missiles from iran have been defeated summarily. and biden asks harris, the vice president, said, what should we do? what do you think? and she gets off one of these important lines, strategically and almost emotionally said, take the win. so biden goes back to talking and recommends to president netanyahu, take the win. it's right out of her mouth. >> we party run out of time but i'm not letting you go without asking you to make more questions. >> thank you.

>> are you under a a time cru. >> was no. i'm not. i'm a very honored that you would bring one of the old guys in. [laughing] >> two question. the first one is a long one. the "new york times" is a faceting sort on its front page today, the headline reads some belief in trump without believing him. all about how they don't believe he would follow through on any of the threats he's level on the campaign trail. one guy interviewed said trump was, quote, just riling up the news. i would love your thoughts on that. >> no, i mean, yes, trump likes to rile up the news and so forth. but he, again this is the theme here. no team. he does not have a team. i don't, look, half the people in the country who support him

and they ought to think about this important characteristic. you need a team. we all need teams. claire here, your producers. it's absolutely essential and it's not something to kind of pretend hey, gee, we're doing this alone. >> last question for you. you have written or cowritten 23 books. are you already at work on the 24th? >> well, i write those books from reporting on what's going on. of course what's going on is so important now. it is risky. it is risky to agree, degree,, and particularly in this area of having an autocrat like putin

leading russia, threatening to use tactical nuclear weapons if he is confronting significant catastrophic battlefield loss. there have been moments in the russia-ukraine war where that peaked and it has subsided. but they can go again. putin has made it very clear, he does not want to lose this war. you know what? this war is insane. the idea, if this were a democracy, if, in a democracy the people would just say whose of his leader? we've got to fix it. because it makes no sense. >> bob, so is that they can't

hear the 24th book is going to be about vladimir putin? >> you mean the next one? i don't know. i am not able to talk to him. i revealed in the book that he sent the point of care covid test kits to president trump when he was president, and we talked about this and it's such a window into this trump/putin alliance. i couldn't make it clearer because trump has done this thing covertly. this is equipment that americans need, and he tells putin, he's done this and putin is quite delighted aunty sister trump, don't tell anyone. and trump says, you know, i mean

putin is worried about trump. this alliance goes to the point where vladimir putin is worried about president trump's public relations and he's trying to, and trying to help. but then of course this comes out in the book, and trump, as happens, he immediately denies it. i was astonished, the kremlin issued a statement saying no, this is a true. i, i don't know. i am now in the future going to remember to call the kremlin if i've written something about russia. maybe they will have some response. >> and you know, maybe now is the time after that interview with putin, now that you know

that they are reading what you're writing. bob woodward, "washington post" associate editor and author of "war," thank you so much for coming to the "washington post live." >> thank you. >> i'm going to run downstairs and see you. and thank you for joining us for more these important conversations sign-up for a "washington post" subscription,, get a free trial by visiting that address use of the body of the screen, washingtonpost.com/live here once again i am jonathan capehart associate editor of the "washington post." thank you for watching "washington post live." >> today 2024 republican e presidential nominee and senator d. vance is part of the mom voteowall hosted by moms for america and lafayette hill pennsylvania. you can see them liv a 7 p.m. eastern on c-span2, free mobile app c-span now and online at

c-span.org. >> tonight texas senator ted cruz and his moatic challenger texas representative face off in the debate to represent texas in the u.s. senate. yo can watch the debate live at eastern on c-span2, c-span now our free mobile app and online atbl c-span.org. >> joining us from london is robin barnwell document a film maker and journalist out with a new pbs "frontline" documentary, a year of war israelis and palestinians. documentary? guest: i had been covering the war in ukraine. when october 7 happened, i was in ukraine and a lot of the news

they ran straight away from kyiv trying to get israel as soon as possible. i was remaining there to make a documentary. i was horrified by the violence. and i thought it would be important to come back to make a film following what happened on october 7. by the time i had finished my film in ukraine and managed to get to israel, the shift in the media focus understandably had gone toward also what was going on inside gaza with the war and the response from the israelis to october 7. so it felt important that israelis and palestinians, those caught up in the violence, i wanted to hear their perspectives and to look at how the events of october 7 and those that followed in the war

in gaza had changed perceptions of israelis and palestinians about each other. so i wanted to convey these are ordinary people who do not -- they obviously have political opinions of some kind. they were moderates and people i felt i wanted to essentially humanize the victims to find people on both sides that, whatever the viewer, whatever their own perspective, political perspective, i wanted it to come across that these are human victims, ordinary people, and for the viewer to kind of relate to them and see the humanity of each side. that was important to me. and to get across the humanity because i think sometimes the

news coverage on both sides tensed -- tends to dehumanize cut not purposefully, but you can capture these news clips that do not bring out who these people are and what they have actually gone through and what they are really thinking. that was my aim and vision. host: frontline's "a year of war" for mayors tonight and will be available to stream on frontline's website and on the pbs video app as well. given this is ongoing conflict, how are you able to find the people that you spoke to and what was that like, to go into gaza and talk to them? guest: i had been to gaza before

to cover events. there is no free and unfettered access to foreign media still inside gaza, so while we waited for opportunity to go and visit and speak to people ourselves, it became obvious around april of this year when we were needing to start editing the film that that was not going to be possible, sad already started working with a carefully vetted team of brave journalists and producers. we started gathering footage and then when it became clear i could not go on the ground myself it became imperative that we actually asked the team to meet people we had found on social media. we had been on social media

accounts and the idea was to find a small group of gazans, three in this instance, that had been filming themselves and their experiences and had gone through a great deal personally. what they had actually experienced was, we felt, in the case that we had one young woman who wanted to be a -- in the solar energy business, she had gone through tremendous experience in the north of gaza, not knowing whether to leave her home at the beginning when the israeli army had warned people to leave. we were then looking at her family on videos she had found herself with a young photographer from northern gaza who had been filming quite a lot

about his own experience of the war and then a doctor, the head of surgery at the hospital in northern gaza. we had found these contributors through some of their own social media and footage filmed by others of them and once we had vetted who they were and made sure they were not -- that they were people we felt we could include in a film, within asked our team on the ground to meet them and gather more footage to try to compile visual looks at their experiences of the war and then we had to do these interviews remotely in two cases , the young woman who is 23 years old and we did interviews

remotely in gaza and the doctor had an interesting story. he eventually left gaza and he is in sarajevo and we found him ourselves. i was able to go there myself and film all of the contributors that we identified for the film. host: i want to show a couple clips from the documentary. let's begin with the young palestinian woman. here is a clip from the documentary talking about her family and being displaced 15 times. [video clip] >> [speaking other language]

[speaking other language]

[speaking other language] host: robin barnwell, what do you hope viewers of this documentary gain or get from listening to her story and the others? guest: i think i would like people to try to understand the different perspectives of those caught in the violence. some of those opinions have changed. some of the contributors we filmed, october 7 we have to remember was the deadliest for

israelis in their country's history and triggered a significant trauma and persecution and holocaust and that deeply impacted israelis and their view of the future. in some respects, those people who were living in the communities attacked by hamas on october 7, those were people more likely to be in favor of a two state solution or peace with palestinians, ironically. in the case of one of our characters, that deeply impacted her, one favor -- one person in favor of a two state pollution -- solution in the past. she is now worried a two state solution could mean one state thinking about annihilating the other. but i think it is important that viewers listen to people caught

up in the violence because those perspectives will dramatically shape the future of the region for many years to come. i should add also for palestinians this has also been the worst year in their history. and it has triggered historic trauma of 1948 and the events around the creation of israel and the war that took place around that time when 700,000 plus palestinians were displaced , 200,000 going into gaza. they either chose to leave or were expelled from their homes. that is a historic trauma which

is now coming back again over the course of this year and the events that have happened. you hear this a lot from people inside gaza and you hear the historic trauma perspective from israelis as well regarding israel was supposed to be there safe haven. it was supposed to be the place they were safe and they are feeling very unsafe in their land. host: back to the documentary. let's listen to a young israeli woman that was held hostage by hamas and talk about that on the others. [video clip] >> [speaking other language]

[speaking other language]

host: talk to us about this young woman and the perspective she has. guest: 17 years old when the attack on october 7 happened and she was living with family in a community near the gaza border, which was -- she was there with her family. she had been with friends that night just walking around admiring the beauty of the place. it is a very beautiful place next to the gaza border and her family heard the sirens go off in the morning on october 7. they huddled together in the house and after five hours of attacks, finally hamas fighters

broke into their home and killed her father and then took her mother and her two brothers hostage and they killed her sister. she did not see that happen, but she witnessed -- basically they were taken a short distance, about 10 minutes for them to then go into the tunnel system across the hamas tunnel system in gaza, which is extensive under gaza. she describes the shock of -- the sudden shock because she thought she was going to die and the last thing she thought was that she would be taken hostage and that was a shock and then she was taken over into gaza.

there was a large commotion, people celebrating that hamas had taken hostages. she describes the commotion then ending up in the tunnel system and the orb are an shock of that. host: we are talking with robin barnwell, the documentary filmmaker of "the year of war: israelis and palestinians." it will be available to stream on frontline's website. i want to invite our viewers to join in on this conversation. republicans, dial in at (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text instead of calling. just include your first name, city, and state. do you take a point of view in this documentary?

guest: i try to stay objective as a filmmaker. i know you cannot leave politics entirely and people will always look at what is on the screen and try and interpret maybe inapplicable message behind it all. -- a political message kind it all. my aim of this film was to show those caught up in the violence. it was to empathize with israelis and palestinians who have the worst year of violence in the conflict. and what has happened in the last year is going to have an impact for years to come. it has changed lives and views and impacted many lives, those

who have lost loved ones. my aim is not to have a political message. it is try -- to try to show people. it is just from the perspectives of those interviewed and spoke into and it has given them a voice and a chance to talk about what they have been through, what they see as the future, if there is a future for them. so that has been important for me. i am not here to give political views on the conflict. host: do you address in the documentary the role of the united states? guest: we do not. we entirely leave that alone, partly because the palestinians

and israelis we spoke to, that was not the foremost thing on their mind. united states links to the region are important but that is some other film, another documentary. we were not trying to look at the involvement or policies of the administration or the views of americans at large. host: joanna is up first in germantown, maryland. caller: if this film addresses the plight of women and children on all sides, then it is worth watching. i am not on the side of hamas. i'm on the side of women and children. i am sick and tired of these men on both sides posting and beating their chests like gorillas in the wild and the people that suffer are the women

and children. i do not think they care about their kids. so i hope this documentary focuses on women and children. they are the real victims of this war on all sides. guest: we do spend focus on women and children in the film here and there are a few men as well. i mentioned a young palestinian woman and her story losing her brother in tragic circumstances and her father and from israel you have the tragic story of her loss and also the story of a young hostage. the one and obviously the one thing, you know, one thing that impacts you when you make these films, it's

very emotional to hear the testimony of people and what they have been through, and is also sad to see this violence continue without a visible and and the worry that kind of the children one sees in the film, when they get older what will their situation b? and whether the participants in a continuing conflict? will he be victims of that conflict? is challenging but yes, we are focused very much on women and children as part of the film. >> here's one of our viewers, if you ha' one point t make in this documentary, what would your time what would you want to convey to the world and what would it be? .. i think it is a slightly

depressing movie. the cycle of violence -- i have been going to the region for 30 years. i have never seen israelis and palestinians so far psychologically from each other and one of the characters says in the film we both have to -- neither of us are going anywhere. we are going to be here to stay. if we do not want to have a continuing cycle of violence and -- it is going to be -- someone has to figure something out. it is not going to be a solution which is comfortable for either, potentially for many. that is her perspective and what she shares in the film. i suppose it is the fact that israelis and palestinians are psychologically so far apart from one another and the war that followed in gaza is a momentous moment in the history of the palestinian and israeli

peoples. it is worth reflecting on that and the cycle of violencth is cing. and that does not seem to have an end. ho: tom in illinois, republican. it is your turn. >> the way this thing happened was -- caller: the way this thing happen was the palestinians came across the border and raped women and killed children. my question is, if it was our country and we have people cross the border and do this, we would send the fbi or somebody because they committed crimes against israel and i know they war is terrible, but i was watching this thing keep going. then the palestinians were going to try to get out of the way and they went to the egyptian border and tried to cross and egypt

would not let them in. i was stunned. i thought, surely they would let these people in. they will not let them in because they're muslim brotherhood -- this is what is left of the muslim brotherhood. when they were in egypt, the executor their leader and other leaders of the palestinians do not even live in palestine. they live in qatar. they are billionaires. i do not see the army of palestine or whatever you want to call them -- they built their defenses under hospitals and schools. how are you supposed to fight them? then they teach their kids to hate jews. host: how do you know that? caller: i have seen it on c-span. i have seen it on different shows. they have shown schoolbooks that

the palestinians teach their kids how to hate jews. host: your thoughts? guest: i am sticking away from politics on this. the egyptians have not -- they had originally -- they allowed 90,000 gazans to leave in the initial phases of the war, but then when the israeli defense forces basically came and sealed the border, nobody else has been able to leave after that, except in extremely mandatory and circumstances into israel. this is not part of the documentary.

it is not something we have specifically covered on this particular point you are raising. host: this is another viewer in pennsylvania. why do gaza residents stay and not leave for better living places? what did they say about that area of the country and what it means to them? guest: what gaza means to them? it is very conflicted. many causes have a strong and positive you of gaza in the prewar phase, though the conflict has been going on for decades. one of the characters talks about the fact that gaza for him -- it was his home and life. it is surprising how any palestinians will tell you they rather love the place and even

though it has been under seizure for many years and there are hardships and difficulties and one of our characters make sickly or hamas does not allow freedom of speech or opportunities for palestinians to air their views. hamas does what it wants, she says. she makes it clear that palestinians generally do not have democratic opportunities to express their views about anything else, but it is an amazing location. it has been enormously damaged by the war and the terrible destruction that has taken place. but before they wore -- the war

a lot gazans would say they had an affinity with the place. host: he says in the documentary he has gone to other places around the world but feels most comfortable in gaza. what does ho mean given the situation there -- home me and given the situation there for israeli ends and palestinians? guest: the refugee communities -- not everyone there has refugee heritage. some people were living in gaza anyway but these communities -- if you imagine 2.3 million people living in a confined area , there's a strong sense of community and close proximity to everything. that is part of their culture and there -- they are a close, tightknit community.

that is one of the largest refugee camps in the world. 12,000 people have been living there for decades now, so there is a strong community spirit there. on the border, these communities of people are also very close knit and there are farming and business communities, rather wonderful places built with strong spirit of israel in mind but also strong community spirit, so on both sides you are seeing israelis and palestinians from close to communities who have been badly impacted by this war and october 7.

many of those people -- most of this people now cannot live in those areas and have had to move away. those communities have had lasting damage, not only the hostages taken from them and those who were killed but also those who are now displaced. most palestinians in gaza have been displaced. most of that population has been displaced. those in the communities next to gaza and israel have been broken apart and forced to other places across israel and that has had lasting impact as well on those communities. host: tony is in pennsylvania, independent.

caller: thank you for taking my call. very concerned about the guest's title but also the idea that he is not going to talk about politics. i would say a couple things. one is more is always political. two is this is not a war. this is a genocide. if you look at the international court, israel is creating war crimes, so for two countries to be at war both countries need to have sovereignty and militaries. from what i can see come out the palestinian people have military but no sovereignty. the idea that this man is framing this as a war and saying he does not want to be political , it speaks of a type of propaganda that he is participating in. the next one i want to make is it upsets me when c-span

repeatedly has callers call in and state miss fax like that baby's word is capitated or there were mass decapitations or babies. that has been debunked, but to allow that to go on -- there was mass rape. you allow that to go on. c-span has one side presented and this man is masquerading -- his documentary is masquerading as some impartial thing. there is one people right now being slaughtered. this is not a war. you need to correct guests that bring up things like babies being decapitated. host: you just did what you're talking about you had the opportunity. that is the way we structure the show. you have the opportunity to call us and state your opinion. you can dispute what you have heard from callers and guests.

do you want to respond to what he had to say? guest: thank you for your points. the documentary if you watch it -- i hope you will watch it and maybe take a different view of what is about. i personally did not want to inject myself into other people -- we have interviewed israelis and palestinians. they expressed their views clearly. it is for them to talk about their opinions and issues. as a documentary maker, i am the one who's obviously deciding some of the clips to use, but i do not think anyone would say they have been unfairly represented. the team in gaza is proud of the film and our team in israel is

proud of the film in terms of looking at the issue and reflecting the views they feel are important and i think they gaza team -- maybe they would be a bit hurt given the amount of work and effort they have put in to trying to convey to the world the situation and through the contributors we have interviewed, they have tried to show the reality of the war on the ground inside gaza, so i think they might be a bit surprised by -- you can remember they have been very much part of making the film as well as our is really team, so please do watch and maybe you might change

your view. >> you can watch the entire documentary tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern time on pbs and it will be available to stream on frontline's website. watch it in its entirety and you can decide for yourself. carol in new jersey, democratic caller. caller: i was going to talk about jimmy carter made peace with both sides and he ensured that the united states would not interfere in either side. when trump came in office, the senate told them not interfere with israel, but he did anyway. he brought united states troops in. he brought our united buildings in and that was not right. now there was a war.

after that, he started the war. but that is never said. host: did any of the people you talked to talk about the global response and wanting more from any country, any other country in this situation? guest: yes, i think -- palestinians were concerned about how the rest of the world would view their plight. again, israelis the same. there is no specific instance where they talked about and said -- the focus of the documentary is not about how israel and the palestinian territories sits within the wider international sphere of international affairs. that is not his purpose.

that is to say for other films and other film makers and journalists to do. it is focused on them looking at each other, so israelis and palestinians looking at each other and expressing how their views of each other have changed as a result of the violence. host: en -- ian in florida. caller: i have not seen the film yet. it sounds wishy-washy because you have to take into consideration the politics to come to some conclusions. otherwise it is just meaningless. the fact is that the palestinians have been blown up

on an epic which includes death. you interrupted and made an assumption also on the person who said palestinian kids have been brought up to kill jews. they are. have you ever read the koran? host: you have read it? caller: i have read it. you can see there is death to the jews and death to christians. you have to make assumptions. otherwise, it is just wishy-washy nonsense. host: talking about making a documentary that shows perspective from each side, are you trying so people draw conclusions? what do you want people to get out of this? >> i think i wanted to humanize

those who are caught up in the violence. i'm not denying that it is a very political war and wars are political. i am not shying away from that fact. there are film makers out there who have made films focusing on they on israel's war against hamas. >> we will start with this. improving humanitarian aid. >> first, secretary did right along with secretary of defense austin in strategic affairs

sunday may clear our concerns about the levels of humanitarian aid into gaza. but the letter in this context are ongoing long-lasting communication and concern about the level of humanitarian concern. going back to april two make clear in the plateau. they did make changes, the changes they made caused military assistance to increase.

300 to 400 trucks going in on sundays to gaza but the thing secretary also make clear is that the increase needed to be sustained. what we have seen is it has not been sustained. it's all 50% from where it was so secretary that it was appropriate to make clear that there are changes they need to make again to see the level of assistance making it in gaza comes back of from the local levels. >> the consequence that they don't do that is what? >> not going to speak to a that is. there are provisions under u.s. law that requires certifications and make those, fantasy israel

is not arbitrarily denying humanitarian assistance when the secretary made under that report in april, he did so based on the changes we've seen in place. those levels have to be the same. >> what is the consequence? >> there are implications that i won't speak to hear partly because israel makes changes the secretary outlined in the letter. we've seen israel think changes before and when they do, assistance increases israel the past be months to implement the polio vaccination so we know

it's possible to get manage hearing to gaza. we know logistical bureaucratic surrounded so it is incumbent to around those challenges. >> i don't want to deal with sabbaticals, he will write u.s. law if you look at the provision that we are required to conduct find recipients of u.s. military assistance not arbitrarily denying for impede u.s. and china systems but our hope is israel will make the changes with outlined and implemented in the result will be a dramatic

increase in ultimately their focus on the bottom line. the changes were recommended have gotten it up and they have not been. >> to what extent is that a factor? is casualties, this happened 30 days before the election. >> the bottom line is we thought it was appropriate if we may clear will these changes need to be implemented in an appropriate

period of time to send a letter and said has happen overnight is a short window if we want to see changes because the humanitarian the situation is dire but it is appropriate the different issues to get food, water and medicine. >> the word arbitrarily so it prohibits directly or indirectly and it's not our priority.

space bar it's why are you waiting for another 30 days? >> we believe it is appropriate now and the international military and law to for suits legitimately could be used as military purpose clearly will not only do not do : and for example, if there are military movements in a certain period of time, governments can restrict provisions of humanitarian aid at this so it is not accurate to say that they could be more and

they can walk civilians little they are focused on doing. it is about making a rhetorical statement, it's about seeing the situation reversed. civilians in gaza not getting adequate access to food and medicine and other humanitarian goods as a result, a change in their daily life. that's what we are trying to achieve. >> over a year now, you have made these from the podium yet we are here. officials from this department have a memo that it is

arbitrarily with aid and gaza. it's already doing it, why is the united states waiting? >> first of all, we've been over this before, there are people inside building who reached the opposite conclusion it is important to state for the record, difficult situation not uncommon for people to reach desperate assessments, ultimately if you look at the last year end our record of humanitarian assistance into gaza, what you've seen is the u.s. is at critical moments october 12, let's not forget october 16, a few days after october 7 that secretary was negotiating until 2:00 a.m. to

get the first trucks into gaza. on multiple occasions when we thought the level of assistance getting in work sufficient and policies change and they needed to be opened. we intervened to get back to happen. not to answer locally boy said it's an ongoing process and they are not static, they are dynamic so when the changes, assessments will change and we will act accordingly. >> what is the response? >> they will speak to themselves. >> private conversations.

>> what is your message to the world would the u.s. credibility living through when biden made a similar threat for military aid regardless of the operation what you say? >> without getting into all the details, it's not all accurate comes to communication.

we have to intervene to turn those around and that's what we did april. >> we are going to break away to continue our 45 year to coverage u.s. senate about to travel in to what we expect to be a short session today. live coverage on c-span two. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., october 15, 2024. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing