[gentle jazz music] - [Announcer] Major funding for Chat Box with David Cruz is provided by the members of the New Jersey Education Association making public schools great for every child.

Promotional support is provided by Insider NJ, a political intelligence network dedicated to New Jersey political news.

Insider NJ is committed to giving serious political players an interactive forum for ideas, discussion, and insight online at insidernj.com.

[upbeat jazz music] [upbeat jazz music continues] - Hey everybody, welcome to Chat Box.

I'm David Cruz.

We're taking the full hour today, because we have the three Democratic candidates for US Senate joining us for a special conversation on the issues facing the state and the country.

This is not a debate per se, no opening or closing statements and no clock on the responses.

Our guests today deserve extra credit for agreeing to this format.

So, let me thank them collectively as I introduced them to you.

They are Larry Hamm, Andy Kim, and Patricia Campos-Medina.

Welcome to you all, and thank you again for coming on with us.

All right, let's get started.

The House and the Senate have passed the $95 billion aid package for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan.

$95 billion, 60 billion for Ukraine, 26 billion for Israel, and some humanitarian aid to Gaza and $8 billion for Indo-Pacific region.

Patricia Campos-Medina, would you be a yes vote on this package?

- From the beginning of this campaign, I have been very clear that I'm for a permanent and immediate ceasefire in Gaza, and I also said that we cannot continue to indiscriminately fund Israel without some accountability and them agreeing to follow international human rights law and protecting the lives of civilians, women, and children.

I took that position based on my own, a story about being a survivor of war in El Salvador.

So, at this moment, in place, any aid to Israel, I will be a vote no.

But I also support for Ukraine and in the fighting and protecting their democracy against a foreign invader, which is Russia.

So, I think that this is one of those issues that I will definitely be a no on Israel.

- So, Larry Hamm, does a bill like that represent your priorities as a candidate for Senate?

- No, they don't.

And I would've voted no against the bill with the other Congress people who also voted no.

I'm opposed to any more aid, military aid to Israel.

More than that, I think we should be putting sanctions, economic sanctions on Israel as we did against apartheid South Africa, because of the genocidal war that's going on there.

I'm also opposed to further aid for the war in Ukraine.

I think it's time now for the United States to exercise its influence to bring about a diplomatic solution in that regard.

And I'm opposed to aid for increasing tensions in the Pacific.

I just don't know why we just want more and more war.

We can't take care of our domestic needs here in this country.

I think that money could be better spent on housing, education, healthcare, employment, and needs of the people here in the United States.

- So, Andy Kim, you were a yes on this package, yes?

- Yes, I was.

- So enough, go ahead.

- Well, look, I wanna say I respectfully disagree with Mr. Hamm here.

I think it's so critically important right now, especially on Ukraine, to be able to stand up for our partners and our allies.

You know, this was a blatant violation of their sovereignty by Russia, by Vladimir Putin.

And that is something that we need to stand up against.

I still believe America can be a force for freedom and protecting democracies around the world.

And this was a case where we absolutely have to stand up, show what American leadership means in the 21st century, and have their backs in the same way that we would hope that people would have our backs, if we had threats faced towards us, and which we did.

You know, I remember after September 11th, it was NATO, it was a lot of our European partners and allies that came to our aid.

It's important for us to be able to do that back to them.

- So, yes to all three of those, no to all three of those, and no to Israel.

- No to Israel.

- I mean, David, how many times do we have to go through this?

We spent $6 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Will this adventure in Ukraine be another Afghanistan?

How many trillions will we spend in Ukraine?

- Well, the difference is no troops.

- Will we put nuclear weapons?

Will we establish a military base in Ukraine?

Will we be in Ukraine for 60 years as we've been in Korea?

I mean, how many times do we have to do this?

The United States does not have infinite resources.

We cannot continue to spend on the military.

We're almost at a trillion dollars now on the military budget and at home we can't fund our schools, we're closing our hospitals, we can't even fix our roads.

So, what are we doing?

- I have to say that stability abroad, addressing these security issues abroad, are so vital to our ability to be able to provide for our communities, for our state.

We've seen how economic turmoil abroad or conflicts abroad affect us in the same way it did during the pandemic affected our economy, affected our supply chain.

And, you know, this is something that I think is very important for us to recognize and drawing that link.

So, I agree with you.

You know, I wanna make sure that we have resources for our schools, our communities, that we make sure we are addressing affordability for our families, but we have to also be able to make sure that we're addressing the global security, which does affect us here at home.

- You wanna say something really quick.

- Yes, this is where I think that, you know, as the most powerful military in the world, the United States has a role to play in securing democracy across the world.

I always believe that.

And we have to do it in partnership with people who are trying to protect democracy.

And in Ukraine case, I think that the people of Ukraine are trying to defend themself against a foreign invader, which is Russia.

And we must contain Russia, because no contain in Russia means that the NATO coalition, our European allies are actually creating more instability in the region, which also impacts our Middle East policy.

So, in that sense, I am in support of Ukraine.

But I'm thinking, what about Israel?

I mean, we do have a government in Israel that is indiscriminately attacking the people of Gaza.

And actually, yesterday, there was a report around how there is this rogue unit that is actually creating chaos in the West Bank.

What is our responsibility as the most powerful military in the world to actually, hold our partners accountable?

And I always remind people that we, the United States fund the military in Israel.

It's our taxpayers dollars that are creating the genocide and the killing of innocent Palestinian people.

What is the response to how do we hold Israel accountable?

- Absolutely.

- Let me put a pin on that.

We're gonna come back to this issue in a couple seconds.

I just wanted to follow up with you about these votes this week.

You also voted against the measure that would force TikTok's Chinese owners to divest or face a ban in the US, yes?

- That's right.

That's right.

Well, look, I have concerns about the US competition with China.

This has been something I've worked on in Congress, but we have to do it in a comprehensive way for the United States Congress to start to get into the business of banning individual companies.

That needs to be a last case scenario.

And there's still more that we can do to try to address these issues.

The other thing that I'll say is that, you know, if we have concerns about potentially the Chinese government or some other foreign government having access to our personal information, I'll be honest with you, I have concerns about big corporations having access to that much information.

So, whether it is foreign companies, foreign countries or big corporations, we should be taking the steps to be able to address our own ability to control our privacy.

So, that's what I've asked and pushed my colleagues to do.

They have not moved in that direction and I think that we're falling short of the types of steps that we need to do to have the comprehensive approach that we here in America deserve.

- Larry Hamm, are you yes or no on banning TikTok?

- I would've been no on banning TikTok on that.

The Congressman and I agree, but I would ask the Congressman, why did he vote in favor of the FISA bill that President Biden just signed, which would make possible warrantless surveillance here in the United States as if we don't have enough surveillance.

But I wanna go back to Ukraine for a minute.

And I remember, David, when I watched President Biden during his State of the Union address say that we were only going to send defensive weapons to Ukraine.

That has changed.

We have sent offensive weapons.

The Prime Minister of England has talked about sending troops to Ukraine.

The President of France has talked about sending troops to Ukraine.

How long will it be?

I mean, how do we know that we already don't have special forces in operation in Ukraine?

This is just like Vietnam.

It always starts out this way.

Oh, we are not gonna have heavy involvement.

And before you know it, we have a 20-year war.

We are at an inflection point in the United States, both domestically and internationally.

We must change course in both directions, because if we don't, it will have dire consequences.

We can't continue to spend on the military and neglect our domestic needs and we can't push the world toward world war.

- All right, let me just ask you really quick, Congressman.

Would you support sending us troops to Ukraine?

- No.

- Okay.

All right, you had something to say before on TikTok.

- Well, I think that the issue of TikTok is one example of how we need to actually renegotiate a trade agreement.

The China PNTR and all the issues that have to do how we regulate data and international corporations and the investor rights.

I think it has to, is a bigger policy than just banning TikTok.

I would've been a yes on banning TikTok by expanding it to actually regulating how corporate monopolies are controlling our data and how we need the Congress to do more than just focus on China and the focus on one company.

- And I wanna stay on the Middle East real quick and then we'll move again.

Andy Kim, can you define ceasefire in the context of the Israeli Hamas conflict?

- Well, yes, absolutely I can.

I mean, I'm someone who's worked in diplomacy before.

I've worked in national security at the State Department, I've worked out in war zones.

And so, I've been part of these types of discussions in other contexts.

You know, a ceasefire is an agreement between the warring parties, between those that are in the conflicts to try to find the solution that can be able to end the cessation of violence and be able to push forward, which is what exactly we need right now.

You know, especially with a, you know, a famine outbreak in Northern Gaza.

You know, as someone who worked in humanitarian assistance before, we cannot address that.

We cannot have the kind of access to be able to provide the food that we need and the other supplies that we need, while this conflict is going on.

So, I hope that we can have that negotiated element and that's what the diplomatic effort is so necessary right now.

- Larry Hamm it seems like we should all agree that a ceasefire, we should all be yes votes on a ceasefire.

Why can't Congress come to terms with what even ceasefire means?

- Because some people are for ceasefire in word and war in deed, and that's what we have here.

- What does that mean?

- Well, what it means is that people are appropriating the language of ceasefire, but they're not concretely doing anything to make a ceasefire happen.

I mean, look at this last aid bill that Congressman Kim voted for more billions to Israel for genocidal war in Gaza, while at the same time part of that bill was a provision to not fund UNRA, the United Nations Refugee Agency, to help the people of Gaza who are facing genocide.

34,000 people have been killed.

14,000 children, 10,000 women, 19,000 orphans, more than 1 million people displaced.

And we continue, Congressman.

Why are we continuing to send billions for war?

If you want a ceasefire, the President Biden should call up and say either Israel ceasefire or we're gonna cut off aid.

Other presidents have done that in the past.

It's nothing new.

But we continue to cater to the needs of the military industrial complex, because that's what this is all about, getting billions for Lockheed and the other armaments companies.

- All right, you wanted to say.

- I wanna say that, I mean, it goes farther than that.

We need more clarity as to what is our role in the Middle East.

We fund the military of Israel.

We have the ability to tell them to behave as a country that actually wants to get to peace.

The State Department should be negotiating peace, not managing war.

We are cave in to the Pentagon and the warhog.

- Is it as simple in your mind as Larry Hamm suggests, the President calling Benjamin Netanyahu.

- We fund the military in Israel.

We have a responsibility as Americans, taxpayers, to hold Israel accountable for the violations of international human rights law and the fact that children, 30,000 families are being impacted.

Now, Hamas is a terrorist organization, but not every Palestinian is a Hamas member, and we acting like it is.

And even Netanyahu, this is what people forget.

Netanyahu is more closely aligned to migrant Republicans than it is to try to force a democratic solution and engagement in the Israel.

So, let's talk about what Netanyahu's role in this war is.

We are caving to Netanyahu's expansion and we are caving to his warhog mentality and it's our responsibility as Americans to actually call for peace.

- All right, you want to get a quick response in there?

- Yes.

Look, I mean, I agree about the need to be able to end this violence and be able to address this humanitarian catastrophe that's out there.

And yes, you know, I wish that we had the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and that we could be able to draw this.

- But you've been a congressman for six years, you have a role to play.

- Correct.

I have a role to play.

- In driving the debate and changing the discussions.

- That's right.

And what we were able to do, you know, still given the fact that we have an extremist Republican majority.

Despite everything they're trying to do to block aid to Ukraine or get rid of all humanitarian assistance, we were able to use our leverage to get $9.2 billion in humanitarian assistance.

Not just for Gaza, but for 9 million displaced people in Sudan and crises all across this world.

And, you know, that's meaningful.

Again, it's not perfect, but you know, the role of a legislator, you know, having done this work now for nearly six years.

Yes, we try to make that progress and we can still work hard to try to address these needs and end this violence, but there has to be a recognition of just what we're dealing with, with such a troublesome and extremist majority in Congress.

- But we're not making progress.

We're killing people.

We are not making progress.

We're not moving toward peace.

- All right, Patricia, real quick, and then I'm gonna move on.

- You also voted for calling a protest chant of the Palestinian people for freedom and safety to call it as, you know, an anti-si.. - Antisemitic - Semitic, and to me, you know, we as a elected leader have to be a moral clarity.

Every American has the right to protest and has the right of freedom of speech to actually vote for categorizing any type of language as antisemitic or not, I think that, that was a little bit of a stretch.

- This is from the river to the sea, the phrase?

- Yeah, yes.

- You wanted to say something about that?

- Yeah.

Well, look, you know, I absolutely agree that people have the right to be able to protest, but we have to be very careful here when we see this language being used by Hamas, by Hezbollah, to talk about how Israel doesn't have a right to exist.

You know, that is very.

[panelist speaking simultaneously] - I'm gonna move on from this.

- Netanyahu says that Palestine, he uses the same language to talk about this.

- That was the point that I was gonna make, is that, that is a phrase that's been appropriated by others as well.

So, let's move on from that, onto immigration.

Still up there on voters' minds and an issue that Republicans have made their own.

Patricia Campos-Medina, is this a national crisis and does it represent the biggest failure of the Biden administration?

Two separate questions.

- It's the bigger failures of our Congress.

Both Democrats and Republicans have failed for 30 years to find real solutions to the immigration crisis.

We have not had immigration reforms since the 1980s.

So, I play the fault in both in Congress inability to act.

We need first to solve our refugee crisis at the border.

That means that we have to adjudicate refugee application fast and we need to fund the resettlement programs.

After that, we need to actually find a solution to 11 million documented workers beginning with DACA and TPS, and third, we actually have to have a foreign policy position that includes trade and economic development aid to Latin America, including the Caribbean and our South American partners.

We do not talk about Latin America as a crisis, and that is a failure of our foreign policy.

And I am ready to actually have proposals about how we engage Latin America as a partner in the region to slow the flow of migration so we can solve the voter crisis.

- Larry Ham, is it a crisis, and is it a failure of the Biden administration?

- It is a crisis, and it's been a failure of all the administrations for the last 25 years or so.

What we need right now is an immigration policy that's based first and foremost on human rights.

We cannot separate families, we cannot put children in cages, we cannot support putting up Constantine wires so people are killed trying to cross the Rio Grande.

We cannot let people starve or die of thirst in the deserts of Texas and California.

It's absolutely wrong.

So, what do we need?

First and foremost, we need more federal funding for the immigration apparatus at the border for, as my colleague said, adjudication of cases.

But more than that, we need to provide aid to our cities upon which the burden of immigration is being placed.

New York City, Newark, New Jersey, Chicago, all of these poor people are being sent there and the federal government, the Biden administration, saying take care of them without providing the resources necessary to do so.

So, that's what has to happen.

If our cities are going to bear the burden of absorbing new immigrant populations, the federal government must provide the resources for them to do so, so that we don't end up cutting back services to the citizens that already live there and are in need of those services in order to accommodate a new population.

- Okay, Andy Kim, both of those things seem to me to be something that you would agree with.

- Yes.

- This is a failure of Congress as much as it is a failure of the administration, yes?

- That's right.

It's a failure at the federal level.

- Why can't you guys get it together?

- Well, look, part of it is the fact that, and I've seen this up close and personal, over five and a half years, that a lot of my colleagues, especially on the other side of the aisle, that scream and yell about immigration the most, actually don't wanna solve this problem.

This is something that has become a really good political weapon for them to use.

And when we go and try to engage, and I love what Dr. Campos-Medina has talked about in terms of adjudication.

You know, we have 3 million pending immigration cases as a country.

Only 680 some federal judges.

It would take 10 years for them to just get through the cases that are there right now, we can make a more orderly process.

That is a very tangible thing we can do.

But they don't wanna do this, because they wanna, you know, we even hear President Trump, former President Trump telling my colleagues not to address this issue so he can run on this in November.

- This is where my record as a labor advocate, a labor champion comes into play, because Trump uses immigrants as a weapon to tell American workers that the reason for their economic instability and their economic anxiety is immigrants.

But that is just, it is just a political ploy.

So, what we need to remind American workers is that we are all vetted off when we figure out how to welcome immigrants and absorb them, and actually, allow them to legally work in this country and give back and contribute to our economy.

We just had a report right here in New Jersey about the high level of contributions that immigrants make to our economy.

And I say it will be the same story nationally, but what we have allowed is Democrats have given the rhetoric of how do we fight for working people?

How do we fight for American workers?

And that's what I always said.

What Democrats need to do is actually have a solution to American workers economic plight, which is to say, you have to fight for union, you have to fight for a minimum wage, you have to fight for affordable healthcare, and you have to fight for what they wanna hear, solutions to their economic plight.

Otherwise, Donald Trump will continue to take away working class voters and union voters.

And that's what I come into place, because we have solutions.

- Andy Kim came in here and then Larry.

- Yeah, I mean, I agree with this a lot, and just to build off of it.

We have to make sure that as we're engaged in that and showing what it is that we get done for working families, but we have to make sure that we don't adopt the rhetoric of Donald Trump when it comes to immigration.

Which we have seen, you know, some of the Democrats, we see sort of a Republican light kind of approach and rhetoric.

You know, we have to be the party that stands clear in terms of, you know, I helped pass a Dream and Promise Act for our undocumented dreamers to have a pathway forward.

You know, I co-sponsor legislation that opens this up and changes the registry approach and tries to open up this pathway for millions more.

We have to show that, you know, this is a value of our country.

You know, this year is actually 50 years since my parents immigrated here.

We are stronger as a nation.

It is good for our economy, business community, chambers of commerce.

The top thing that they come and talk to me about is about how do we open up immigration more so we can get the workforce to be able to strengthen our economy.

It can be a positive, it shouldn't just be seen as this, you know, as this crisis only, you know, it's something that makes us strong as a nation.

- All right, Larry Hamm, last word on this.

- Well, I would ask Congressman Kim, if he would call on President Biden to declare a national emergency at the border so that Congress could appropriate emergency funds that could in fact be appropriated to our cities to help our cities.

So, because we have to see this as a multi-dimensional problem.

Absolutely, do immigrants help the economy?

Yes, they do.

But also there's an issue of how do we absorb new populations, provide housing, education, healthcare and other things.

There's a tremendous burden being placed on our cities and if the federal government does not provide adequate resources, then it will cause problems.

- As a legal champion, I've always said the thing that we need is to actually legalize the 11 million documented workers, actually get them into the economy and they already contribute taxes.

So, the idea that immigrants are a burden to our taxes, it is a myth and we gotta clarify that now.

We need to figure out how to legalize the 11 million documented.

This is a three-point solution, legalization and actually a refugee policy reform.

- All right, would you support an emergency declaration that's a yes or no?

- Well, I'd support anything to be able to get support back to our communities.

I don't know if Congress with this Speaker of the House would actually agree upon that even if Biden made such a declaration.

But I agree wholeheartedly.

You know, this failure has been pushed upon the states and the local communities.

- All right, let me move on.

Larry Hamm, Charles Boyer posted after a debate between Andy Kim and Tammy Murphy that the word Black was never uttered during the debate.

- [Andy Kim] That's right.

- Fewer constituencies have been more loyal to Democrats than Black voters.

What one thing can the Democratic Party do to convince Black voters that they've gotten their money's worth?

- Well, the Democratic party could pass the Reparations Bill H.R.

40 and in the Senate it's S. 40.

I mean, it only calls for the creation of a commission.

My concern is that the Reparations Bill may be used as a kind of performative politics.

People voice support for it, knowing it might never be passed.

So right here, I would call on President Biden in the interim until Congress can pass H.R.

40 and S. 40 to establish a presidential commission on reparations.

To begin that work until the actual Congressional Commission can be established.

And I would want to know if Congressman Kim, if you would call upon President Biden to in fact establish a presidential commission on reparations.

- That's certainly something I'd support.

You know, if we can move forward, 'cause I agree with you.

Right now, we're having a hard time in terms of getting H.R.

40 across the line.

Something I co-sponsor.

And look, you know, to continue on with your question here, you know, we've struggled to be able to get across the line the actual piece of the legislation that have been asked upon us, whether that's the George Floyd Justice and Policing Act.

We passed in the House of Representatives, died on delivery in the Senate.

They were not able to get that across the line.

The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, you know, other things that we need to be able to do to be able to push forward on that.

But that's why we need the filibuster reform that we need in the Senate to be able to move forward and pass this into law, be able to take other steps to be able to provide greater economic support facing this huge racial disparity that the Black community, the Hispanic community and others are facing here in New Jersey with a $300,000 wealth gap between, you know, the racial divide here in New Jersey.

That's a huge problem.

We have to be able to take it on.

- I will also add that, and I agree that the word Black wasn't uttered during that debate and the issue of wealth creation and economic mobility for Black community.

But there also no discussion about the importance of the Latino community, the importance of how the lack of representation and actually input of our community in New Jersey.

There was also no discussion about Puerto Rico and the fact that the Puerto Rican community is a large voting block for New Jersey.

And there's a lot to say.

The Senate has a lot to say about the financial future of Puerto Rico and the health of their environment and the access to water and clean energy.

And nobody's talking about a private or community voting block in New York City.

So I say, you know, as we continue this debate, we also have to ask questions about what are we doing to address key communities that are lacking opportunity.

And the wealth gap for the Black community is similar, is worse for the Black community, but we are right there Latinos in the same boat.

And we also have a crisis of housing affordability for Black and Latino families and a crisis of economic affordability in New Jersey for urban communities that we are not addressing.

And it's a critical, for me, I always said the crisis of affordability is a crisis of good jobs.

It's a crisis of access to housing.

It's a crisis of access to affordable healthcare.

And that's why I always been for expansion of Medicare for all and the protection of the right of workers to join a union.

Kim, you just took money from the Starbucks CEO who has been fighting the union and not allowing young workers to have a union at the Starbucks, at the Starbucks Corporation.

Those workers are actually young workers who came out of college with student debt they're now riddled with hundreds of thousands of student debt.

And the only job they could find was a Starbucks or a Amazon.

At the same time, Schultz is fighting the union at Starbucks and you just took a donation from him.

So, how do you reconcile that?

- Okay, well, that's the first that I'm hearing of that.

You know, we've had tens of thousands of people donate to our campaign, but that is, I've never had a conversation with him.

I don't know him.

But what I do know is that I passed in the House of Representatives, the pro act things that we all support in terms of making sure we're looking out for working families and trying to address those.

And look, while we're talking about some of these issues, I'll be honest, like, yes, we also need to make sure we're lifting up the Asian American Pacific Islander community, which is sometimes left out of this and something that we need to make sure as I've talked to them, you know, the challenges that they face here in New Jersey and across the board.

But I will say, if we can just take a step back.

I hope we get encouraged by the diversity between the three of us and what we bring to the table in terms of being able to highlight the different communities within New Jersey that make it up.

And I'm really excited that we can lift up these voices, while we show that we look out for each other, right?

This idea of be a friend before we need a friend, you know, we can make sure that we're working together to build a wide coalition to build to go.

- And I would say that it is historic.

I mean, I wanna acknowledge that.

It's historic that it is three people of color running for the United States Senate.

And I think we need to celebrate that.

And this is part of what we have been saying, I think all of us, the three of us, are a testament of what we are demanding the democratic to do.

- All right, a rainbow in our studio, which is always great.

- Yes, we are, we are.

- So, let me switch gears here for a minute.

You are all three parents.

Andy Kim, you have two little boys, right?

- [Andy Kim] That's right.

- Yeah.

So, what's the hardest part about being a parent?

- Oh, well, look, [Andy chuckling] the hardest part of being a parent for me, I've got a 6-year-old and 8-year-old, a first grader and third grader, two boys.

I mean, the hardest part of being a parent, is knowing that I cannot, nor should I, try to fully control their lives and what they grow up into.

Yeah, I try to give them different experiences, different things that they can see and try to see what they enjoy doing and whatnot.

But the other thing I'll just say is that I get really worried when I see the chaos and the crisis out there in the world right now.

I worry about what kind of America they're growing up in.

As I said, you know, my parents immigrated here 50 years ago.

They did it specifically to try to be able to give, you know, their future family, me and my sister, a better life and more opportunities.

You know, I'm a son of immigrants, a public school kid that now gets to represent in Congress the community where I grew up.

But you know, I worry about just what they're gonna grow up in.

I can't control it all.

But my efforts in Congress and public service have in part been to try to shape the world that they grow up in, and hopefully, be able to give them the future they deserve.

- Patricia Campos-Medina, you have one teenage son, is that right?

- Two teenage sons, - Two teenage sons.

- They're twins.

They're 13 years old, yes.

- Oh, okay.

So, what's the hardest part about being a parent?

- The hardest part right now we think is how they interact with technology and how they spend their time and how they socialize in technology and making sure that we protect how they mature emotionally at the same time that they're able to make mistakes as teenager and it doesn't carry them for a long time.

And this is where I think that how we regulate technology and the use of technology and companies like Facebook who own Instagram and chat all that, how we regulate them and hold them accountable for what they're feeding into our young kids is important.

But also as a mother, I worry about can they make mistakes as teenagers and not carry them through their whole life.

- Yeah, yeah.

- Yeah.

- Larry Hamm, three daughters?

- Three daughters.

- Three daughters.

- I'm a grandfather.

- You're a grandfather.

- [Andy Kim] How many grandkids do you have?

- I have one grandson.

- Okay, great.

- Eli, my grandson.

- Yeah.

- Oh, big ups to Eli.

So, what's the hardest part of being a parent now?

Or is it easy now, because you're a pop pop and you don't have to worry about raising anybody else anymore?

- Well, you never stop worrying about your children.

No matter how old they get.

And I worry about my grandson.

But let me tell you what the biggest challenge we faced when we were raising my three daughters.

I'm very proud of them.

They're all college graduates.

Two of them have master's degrees.

The biggest challenge was getting them through college.

My last two daughters, they're all graduates of Rutgers University, the state university.

- [David Cruz] Economically, emotionally, - We had to mortgage the house twice to get them through college.

No one should have to mortgage their home to get their children through college.

This country is rich enough to provide a free college education to all of its young people.

And then it's not just putting them through college, it's the aftermath.

It's graduating with 50,000, $100,000 worth of loans or if they go to law school or graduate school, $150,000.

If we can bail out banks and corporations to the tune of trillions of dollars, we can abolish all student debt in the United States of America.

There's one more thing I want to say.

In defense of mothers, I don't know how some mothers make it in America today.

Between rent, you can't live in New Jersey and not have a car.

A car note, auto insurance.

I mean, after that, there's hardly anything left.

A lot of women now are paying 1,500, maybe $2,000 a month for childcare.

We must have universal free daycare in the United States of America.

I think that would help a lot of working women in this country.

- You made me think of my mom who raised 11 children on her own.

- [Patricia Campos-Medina] Oh wow.

- Andy Kim, this kind of leads us into this next question.

Your opponents say that your position on student loan debt is unclear.

Would you tie means testing to student debt relief?

- So, look, let me just clarify this.

First of all, I agree very much with Mr. Hamm about making sure that education is available to everybody and free as much as possible.

That's why I support the College for All Act, which would be able to provide free education for people all across this country.

Those are the types of steps we need to do.

Now, when it comes to student debt, I very much support student loan forgiveness.

I've supported what the president's done.

What I wanted to do is for us to try to take an effort to be able to codify it in legislation, because that would've prevented the Supreme Court from doing what it did, which is, you know, being able to overturn a lot of what President Biden wanted to do, but I continue to work with him.

What I like about his approach that the President's done, is in particular addressing it in terms of income based, which I think is a really brilliant move.

Able to really make sure that, you know, any burden that people have going forward is not gonna be overwhelming.

It's gonna be something that they can manage and something in line with their income.

I think that's brilliant.

I think those are the types of steps we need to do.

We're actually trying to do that when it comes to childcare, the Childcare Affordability Act, something I supported.

You know, that would do the same thing.

Provide free childcare for many, many people and have many others pay no more than maybe seven to $10 a day for their childcare.

Those are the types of things that I think hopefully help a lot of families.

Help a lot of mothers out through these times.

- Patricia Campos-Medina, you have a different take on student loan debt relief?

- I think that we should do what we did to the banks in 2009 and totally eliminate it and erase it.

I think that it was a political choice we made in the 2000s to make college unaffordable and to privatize the student loans.

That was a political choice Congress made.

And not supporting President Biden in the elimination of the student debt when he first came.

I think it was a mistake and it is great if we can codify it, but in the meantime, four years later, people are still carrying high levels of student debt and the banks are making money out of it.

And it is about time that we actually stand for student debt forgiveness.

- When we codify it though, that when we codify it, not only can we prevent the Supreme Court from overturning it, but we can also make sure that it.

- But in the mean time people still have debt, Andy.

And doing it slowly doesn't work.

We forgave that for banks, we forgave that for the mortgage companies and we forgave the auto companies.

- But I think you're misunderstanding what I was advising the President to do is, we can still move forward with the forgiveness right now, but we can codify it in law and that can also help make sure that future people that take on student debt the day after of that kind of presidential action happens, 'cause otherwise, you know, people just continue to accrue and then what do you do down the road?

You need some sort of ongoing mechanism to be able to try to address.

- All right, let me end it here.

- Well, we could pay for all of this, if we would reverse the Trump tax cuts for the richest people in this country, the $2 trillion tax cut.

And if we stopped sending billions abroad for war and if we cut the near trillion dollar military budget, we would have enough money to pay for these things.

It's, you know, I'm always amazed how when it comes to war or it comes to what the rich people want, they don't have to petition, they don't write letters to Congress.

You don't see bankers and corporate execs marching up and down the street.

They get what they want.

The working people and the poor people in this country, we have to go through all these gyrations to make our government do what we want it to do.

- Let me move on from this subject.

On abortion, you all support a person's right to abortion services.

Are there any circumstances under which you would think that they could be restricted?

Let's start with you.

- I fundamentally believe that our reproductive freedoms and reproductive choices a woman's choice to make.

I will at this point, I am for protecting our rights of women's to make our own reproductive choices.

And I will go to the United States Senate and end the filibuster, expand the courts, and may put ethics restrictions on the Supreme Court so they're not able to vote against our interests as women, while they're wine and dine by billionaires.

- So, you don't think that there's any circumstances under which the access to abortion rights would be?

- It's a woman's right to choose between her and her doctor and her faith.

- [David Cruz] Gotcha.

- And my responsibility is to provide, make choices for young women and for women to make different choices by economic opportunity, education.

So, are they able to grow into and make different choices?

- Andy Kim.

- Yeah, you know, this is really a defining issue of our time.

I voted to pass the Women's Health Protection Act and that's what we need to make sure we're passing through the Senate.

That would be something that would overturn what the Dobbs decision did.

And to your point, directly, I mean, what we've seen in states across this country since the Dobbs decision came down, is any effort that they can find to be able to intervene and take away women's right to choose, the opponents to abortion will do so.

And that's what makes it, they weaponize all of these different aspects of it.

And that's why I agree with Dr. Campos-Medina that, you know, we need to make sure that this is for a woman to do so.

- No restrictions?

- That's right.

- Absolutely no restrictions.

I fully support a woman's right to a safe and legal abortion.

But there's an issue here, and sometimes we have to speak to the Democratic Party.

When the Democratic Party was in power in both houses and in the White House, people were saying codify Roe into law, and the party failed to do that.

And that made it easy for the Supreme Court to come behind and then overturned Roe.

My problem with some Democrats is that they wait until we're in a full-on crisis on an issue and then they say, "Well, I'm for this."

But there are people who just like on Gaza.

You know, Congressman Kim is now for a ceasefire.

He wasn't for ceasefire in October.

Wasn't for ceasefire in November.

Wasn't for ceasefire in December.

Wasn't for ceasefire in January.

- I'm called for it in November with the negotiated ceasefire.

- Wasn't for a ceasefire when the killing was going on.

Now, when it's popular, you know, we are for these things.

The party has to lead, it can't just follow.

We have to lead on these issues.

- This is what I believe that a woman's voice is important in the United States Senate.

A working class woman is important, because part of the right to choose is also access to reproductive healthcare.

So women, Black women have actually the ability to choose for themselves when to become a mother, how to become a mother, and once they become a mother, that they also have access to healthcare so they can be good mothers and raise their children.

And that is all connected.

Reproductive justice is connected.

We have our ability to choose when to be a mother, but also our ability to take care of ourselves and have healthy pregnancies.

Black women have the highest risk of death during pregnancy and that's something that can be preventable and we just are choosing to ignore it.

- All right.

- Black women have the highest rate of infant and maternal mortality because of the disparity that exist in healthcare infrastructure in urban and Black and brown communities.

In New Jersey, in the last three decades, we've closed more than 30 hospitals and we've defunded hospitals in other places.

Right now, University Hospital in Newark, the only publicly-funded hospital in the state of New Jersey, is facing all kinds of budget cuts and downgrades in services.

We need a national healthcare infrastructure protection and development act.

Not one more hospital should be closed in the United States of America.

Isn't this what Covid showed us?

I mean, we had a pandemic and we didn't have enough hospital beds.

We had tents set up for people to give them, in the richest country in the world.

We had to set up tents to give people healthcare.

We had to call in refrigeration trucks, why?

Because for some reason we won't fund hospitals, but we'll fund war.

- All right, let me move on again.

Would you vote to restore the salt deductions?

Campos-Medina.

- Most definitely.

I mean, middle class families need relief and I think that as a congressional delegation should continue, but what we need to do is actually work on an economy that works for all.

Because affordability issues are not just for upper middle class families, middle class families.

We need affordable housing, we need rent control, we need investment on mixed income housing.

And we actually, need to protect the ability of working class people and poor people to be able to be housed.

- All right, Andy Kim?

- Absolutely, I've already voted to restore and that's something we need to continue to build out on, because let's remember, you know, this was something that former President Trump did as an attack against states like ours, blue states that voted against him.

So, we absolutely need to make sure we're doing that.

And look, this is something that again, all three of us have talked about before.

You know, we don't get enough back from the federal government here in New Jersey.

You know, we only getting back what, 70 some, 80 some cents for every dollar that we put in.

You know, we have to be able to get those resources back.

But, you know, otherwise we see what happens with the salt deduction is that, you know, we're funding other states that are not investing in their schools.

Not investing in their infrastructure.

- I'm running outta time, Larry Hamm.

- Absolutely, I would support that.

But more than that, we have to realize that there is a housing crisis in the United States of America.

First and foremost, we need to change the foundation.

Housing should not be a profit center.

Human beings should have a human right to decent housing, and we need to have that.

We need to get the federal government back in the business of constructing public housing as it did after world War II.

Right now, we are some 2 million housing units behind and we need a national housing construction program, which could be a source not only for affordable housing, particularly, for low income people, but also, it could be a national jobs program to provide jobs at a living wage.

But lastly, David, let me say, for us to have a half million people homeless in the United States of America, the richest country in the world, is an abomination.

We must do something.

How can we walk by people living on the streets of the United.

Every day, we encounter folks.

We can save, right now, we are providing money for the needs of the people in Ukraine, but we're not providing money for the need.

We have veterans that fought in Iraq, that fought in Afghanistan, that are living on the streets of the United States.

That is wrong.

And we need to put our people's needs first.

- All right, I think this is my last question.

I'm literally running outta time.

On crime, here's another issue that Republicans are defining.

Statistics show that crime was down in 2023, but voters say they're still very concerned about crime.

Andy Kim, you got lawmakers in Jersey pitching stand your ground laws.

Do we need more police, better police or something else?

- Well, look, we certainly wanna make sure that we're looking out for security in our community, but one particular program that I helped address with partnered with a police chief out in Ocean County before, was about working to embed social workers in with our first responders.

And recognizing that we need to have more tools in the toolbox to be able to address these issues like mental health in response to these different efforts to be able to do this.

So, you know, I think it's important for us to think about what kind of first response structure we need.

The other thing I'll just say as I have an opportunity is that we are in dire situation when it comes to 911, when it comes to EMTs, ambulances.

You know, this is, frankly, a crisis that very few people I feel like have been looking at.

So, we need to make sure that we are responsive to any needs that the citizens and the residents have, whether security, health or others, and we're not hitting that mark right now.

- All right, they're literally yelling in my ear.

I have a minute for each of you on that question, Larry Hamm.

You said the police need to be deconstructed and reconstructed.

You said that on this show.

- Absolutely.

- Yeah, do you still feel way.

- That's on the issue of police brutality and we want an end to police brutality.

Last year, the police killed more people than any year since they started keeping records, 1,232 people.

But if we're serious about dealing with crime, we have to deal with the root cause of a crime.

David, when I was a student at South 17th Street School in Newark, New Jersey, we had Model Cities Program.

We had educational and recreational supplemental activities all year round.

They don't have that anymore, because the country turned its back on the war on poverty.

And this crime is the fruit of turning our backs on the war on poverty.

We can eliminate poverty in the United States of America.

- [David Cruz] All right.

- I support policies that focus on community policing and safe cities, but also, I agree with Larry.

We need to invest in the root causes of violence in our cities, which is the lack of good jobs, the lack of economic opportunity for poor and working people.

The inability of people to afford to live and work in the cities.

And that is an issue of economic opportunity and economic investment and job creation.

So, we cannot just talk about policing without addressing the root cause of poverty in our cities.

And that's where creating an economy that works for all and making sure that we have jobs in our cities, that we actually have housing in our city, that we actually are able to invest in youth programs and invest in our schools.

I think that that's critical for reducing violence in our cities.

- All right, last question.

If somebody other than you wins this nomination, this is a yes or no, will you support them?

Patricia Campos-Medina.

- Yes, I am a democrat and I will eventually support the nominee and President Biden.

- Oh, absolutely.

There's so much at stake this November and you know, I've seen up close the challenges of what Republicans are doing, what they're trying to do with a national abortion ban and other issues.

We need to make sure we're fighting against them.

- Each of these two is a good Senate candidate is what you're saying?

- [Andy Kim] Yes, absolutely.

- Yeah.

Larry Hamm.

- Yes, I'll support - You said that you will vote uncommitted.

- Yes.

- Why?

- In the Democratic primary, I'm going for president.

- For president, but for your senate candidates.

- Well, uncommitted is only in the presidential category.

- Yeah, yeah.

- But for president, I'm going to vote uncommitted, because we need to send a message to President Biden that he has to end this genocidal war in Gaza.

- Is there a message that needs to be sent to the President?

- Well, look, we absolutely need to be constantly letting the President know what, you know, we want him to do, and to be, you know, more aggressive on a lot of these different issues that we've been talking about today.

- Confidence, high or low on this president?

- Frankly, the options of Donald Trump is a nightmare.

So, we must do everything we can to get President Biden reelected and engage every border to understand what the difference is.

Donald Trump has said it from the beginning that he will become a dictator and he will end the democracy.

This is a battle for our democracy.

And I will make sure that we get every vote that we can to get President Biden reelected.

Now, we also need to hold him accountable.

That's what organizing, and people protesting, and people letting him know how we feel about things, is part of the deal.

That's part of our democracy.

- All right, here's our real final question and you got maybe five words each on it.

Let's start with you.

Larry Hamm.

Music, movies or museums?

- Music.

- Who?

- I love music.

- [David Cruz] Anybody in particular?

Say jazz And you're my friend forever.

- Well, I like Miles Davis, I like jazz.

- All right.

- Some music.

- Jazz.

No, I'm just kidding.

I'm a movie guy.

- [David Cruz] What movie?

- I mean, look, I think a lot of people know I just have a deep love for "Star Wars".

I'll watch it anytime, every day.

- Nerd.

- Hey, hey, hey.

I grew up with that and my kids love it.

So, it's been amazing, yeah.

- [David Cruz] Movies, music, or museums?

- Music, and I am a nineties girl.

Some Bon Jovi, it gets me going.

- [David Cruz] Bon Jovi?

- But also I like salsa and some Hector Lavo.

It gets me going through any difficult moment thing.

I just love it.

- All right, excellent.

Let me thank you all for coming out.

Democratic candidates for US Senate, Larry Hamm, Andy Kim and Patricia Campos-Medina.

It's good to see you all.

Thanks again for coming on with us.

- Thank you so much.

- Thank you.

- Thank you.

- So, and that's Chat Box for this week.

Our thanks to the entire crew for their great work today.

And thanks to all of you for watching.

I'm David Cruz, we'll see you next week.

- [Announcer] Major funding for Chat Box with David Cruz is provided by the members of the New Jersey Education Association making public schools great for every child.

Promotional support is provided by Insider NJ, a political intelligence network dedicated to New Jersey political news.

Insider NJ is committed to giving serious political players an interactive forum for ideas, discussion and insight online at insidernj.com.

[upbeat jazz music] [upbeat jazz music continues]