Richard Neal and Nadia Milleron debate on 22News

A rematch in Massachusetts' first congressional district. Congressman Richard Neal. Democrats are unwavering in our fight for American families. Once again facing a challenge from Nadia Milleran. We have the highest percentage of independent voters of any district nationally. To represent Western Massachusetts in Washington, two candidates. Think of the cuts that have taken place in the Inflation Reduction Act alone. With two different visions. We need a change, and you can make that happen. Meeting face-to-face for the first time on the 22 News Debate Stage. From your local election headquarters, this is the Massachusetts First Congressional District Debate. From the 22 News Broadcast Center in Chicopee, it's the final sprint before Election Day, and the candidates seeking to represent Western Massachusetts and Washington are here to make their case directly to you. Thank you for joining us for this debate between the candidates for Massachusetts First Congressional District. I'm your moderator, Patrick Berry. We are less than two weeks away from the midterm election, and the candidates are making their final pitch to you, the voters. Joining me today are incumbent Democratic Congressman Richard Neal and his challenger, Independent Nadia Milleran. We thank you both for taking time out of your busy schedules to be with us today. Today's debate will give each candidate an opportunity to share their positions on the issues that matter most to voters. But we have some rules, and here they are. Each candidate will have 60 seconds for opening statements, and the candidates will then answer questions with 60 seconds allowed for each response. If their answer warrants it, I may ask a follow-up question. The candidate will then have an additional 30 seconds to respond to the follow-up. Each candidate will also have 60 seconds for closing statements. We use a traffic light system on the candidates' cameras here in the studio to keep time, so when the light turns red, the candidates' time has expired. The order of opening statements, questions, and closing statements was determined by a drawing held before today's debate. And based on that drawing, Ms. Milleran will deliver the first opening statement. Ms. Milleran, you have 60 seconds. I am so grateful to be here to be able to correct the record because Richard has lied about me repeatedly on TV and through mailers. We are facing a decline in our quality of life for the last 38 years. People are underwater. They can't afford housing, food, gas, insurance, utilities. I'm a mom and a lawyer, and I have fought for aviation safety after Boeing killed our daughter in a new Boeing plane. And that fight taught me how to mobilize people to focus and get people power to get what we need and create political pressure. We can mobilize together to get no federal income tax on income under $100,000, insurance companies out of health care, and manufacturing in our district. We will take 10,000 people to Washington. This is not going to be your usual situation. Vote for Nadia for Congress on November 3rd. Thank you very much. Congressman Neal, your opening statements, please. Mr. Patrick, let me thank you and Channel 22 for offering this opportunity for the two candidates to outline their distinctive positions. The tragedy that Nadia mentioned, I was only too happy to meet with her and her husband. I was able to vote for the measure that she wanted. I organized at her request a hearing on that very issue. And we all understand and sympathize with the tragedy that she and her family have experienced. This election is about who was delivered for this congressional district, whether it was reopening the North Adams Hospital, whether it was North-South-East-West Rail, whether it was $264 million for the new soldier's home, I have delivered for this district repeatedly and traveled around it with great enthusiasm and excitement. My opponent says that we have distorted her record. Everything she has said came from Facebook. It came from newspaper interviews, TV interviews, and radio interviews and statements that she has made. There was no distortion of the words. There's a distortion of the suggestion that it was not what she said. Thank you very much, Congressman. And we are opening our questions, and we will come right back to you, Congressman Neal. Our first question today is regarding tax cuts. You are the top Democrat on the House's Tax Writing Committee. Name one significant spending cut or tax change you would support to help people, even if it's unpopular, with your own supporters. So the biggest tax cut that has occurred for the middle class in the last 25 years has been the child tax credit. Millions of people benefited from that tax credit that I offered. And by the way, don't take it from me. It was highlighted on the front page of The Washington Post. I received accolades across the board for cutting childhood poverty in half through the use of the child credit. Those are the items that you can do when you're the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. I did precisely that. I have opposed the big, beautiful bill that Trump offered as it related to tax cuts, because those tax cuts overwhelmingly went to the people at the very top of the income levels. It is outrageous that those experiences are now harming people at the lower end of the economic spectrum. And my position has been, let's get on with making the child credit permanent. Thank you very much. Ms. Miller, your plan would eliminate federal income tax on earnings below $100,000. How much tax revenue would the federal government lose over a period of 10 years, and which specific spending cuts or tax increases would replace that? The federal government would yearly, and you can just extrapolate it, about $315 billion per year. But the IRS does not collect from top earners and corporate cheats the income tax that they earn. This is something that Richard could have corrected. He could fund the IRS. For every dollar you fund the IRS, you get $10 back. So every year he could collect $700 billion and that would offset the $315 billion that we would lose by not taxing people on the money they need to live on, but also the money they can use in their households and communities. And then that's a further offset because people are going to buy products with the money that they keep in their house that they earned and they're going to pay sales tax on those products. So there has been no relief for the lower class and middle class by our congressmen. Based on your idea, how much money would be left over for other proposals? I'm not understanding your question. How much money would be left over for your other proposals in Congress? If you've done the tax breaks and you've collected the money that you proposed, how much money is left over for other items? That isn't even an issue because we are spending billions every month for a foreign war, for endless war. And so we just have to stop spending that money. And the 1973 law that allows one congressperson to stand up and say we are stopping the funding for this war, we can do that. And our congressman has not stood up to do that. And that's how we can rejigger the economic situation. Thank you very much. Our second question today is regarding health care costs, and we're going to come right back to you, Ms. Milleran, Your campaign calls for getting corporate insurance out of health care. Would families who currently have employer-sponsored insurance be able to keep that as their primary coverage, or would they have to move to a government-run plan? So you don't have to change anything about your actual care. So you can keep your doctor, go to your hospital, have everything in place, but the money that you are currently basically taxed going to insurance companies, you would pay a fraction of that in a tax going to a health care trust. So we would pay for the health care and not for the bloat of the insurance companies, save a trillion dollars and 100,000 lives. So that it's really important to know that we're saving money by having a health care trust and just paying for our health care. Congressman Neal, you have been a supporter of the Affordable Care Act since its passage in 2010. Yet many consumers argue that health insurance remains unaffordable with premiums, deductibles, and other costs continuing to rise. Why do you believe the ACA is succeeding, and why do you favor that over a Medicare-for-all approach? I'm for Medicare-for-all who want it. The ACA has worked. 21 million Americans have health insurance that didn't have it before. It was McConnell's decision to cut the mandate. It was Trump's decision to not renew the Affordable Care Act tax credits, which have been extended time and again. And I will make that a priority after we win the House of Representatives. The ACA has been very successful as it relates to health care delivery. It was a compromise that was negotiated, and it was of great benefit to the American people. The consumer gets the opportunity to choose the plan. And I have said many, many times, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans health care benefits, they've all worked. So there's a great example there. But not to miss the following point. It is Trump's decision to take away the Affordable Care Act tax credits that is unraveling the ACA. It is work. I supported it. And by the way, with great satisfaction, helped to write it. Thank you very much. I do want to come back to you with a follow up. What specific change would you make for people who have insurance but still cannot afford their deductibles or their treatments? I think that we need to continue to expand Medicaid. That's exactly what we did with the Affordable Care Act, Patrick. I think that expanding Medicare is a very important component. Our hospitals are 75% dependent on Medicare and Medicaid. I think that that's the best way to offer preventable services for people who can then not cost the system more as we go down the road. And by the way, I'm immensely proud of that veterans hospital in Holyoke, $264 million, because the Veterans Health Care Service is an essential part of America's health care delivery system. The ACA... Thank you, Congressman. I'm sorry we're out of time. Our next question is regarding the role of the Speaker of the House. We're coming right back to you, Congressman. If Democrats take control of Congress, we'll have a new Speaker of the House. What would you expect that person to commit to for this district? I'm looking forward to voting for Hakeem Jeffries to be the Speaker of the House. What's essential here is to remember is that my opponent has said she's not even sure which party she will caucus with. That means that she's leaving open the opportunity to vote for Mike Johnson to be the Speaker of the House. I'm not going to vote for Mike Johnson. I'm going to vote for Hakeem Jeffries. I've had a great relationship with Hakeem Jeffries. He comes from Brooklyn. We get together every Wednesday morning for breakfast. and having a good relationship with the Speaker of the House is essential to getting legislation passed. He trusts me. I trust him. It's going to be a strong relationship. Thank you. Ms. Milleran, you are running as an independent, but voters need to know how you would use that independence. If your vote determined which party controlled the House, would you be willing to vote for a Republican Speaker? If my vote controlled it, then I would vote for a Democratic Speaker because I would be more likely to get these proposals through no federal income tax for income under $100,000, getting insurance companies out of health care. And you can cover everybody. You don't have to enrich insurance companies, as our congressman has done with the ACA. This has been a boon for insurance companies and has cost over 100,000 lives a year. What about those people dying at the hands of insurance companies for denial of care? That's their business model. And so these are corporate Democrats and we have to, caucusing with does not mean agreeing with. It means challenging the leadership and withholding your vote in order to force the vote on health care for all and a health care trust. Is there anything from the Speaker of the House that you would want him to commit to for our district here in Western Mass? Yes, we have to force the vote on a bill that I would immediately propose, which is getting having no federal income tax for the income we need to live on. We shouldn't be taxed on that income. And it can be offset by the uncollected taxes from corporate players that do not pay their taxes currently. And that's up to 700 billion dollars a year. And this is something that our congressman could have taken care of. He could have helped us all have health care for everybody. Thank you very much. We're going to switch gears now and talk a little bit about tariffs. And this question is coming right back to you, Ms. Milliron. If a tariff protects American manufacturing jobs, but makes families pay more for the product, when is that trade-off worth it? You don't have to pay any extra money for a tariff because it is an incentive for a company to produce products in the United States. If you produce the product here, you don't pay any tariff. So many unions, including the UAW, are for targeted tariffs to protect American jobs. No, I am not MAGA, and I would vote to impeach Trump. And so it is outrageous to put me that I am MAGA, but I do not support the way that Trump administers these tariffs. They have to be targeted. They cannot be in retribution against people. And you have to have a system that is supported by labor in order to protect American jobs. And that has worked for the United States and for Germany and for India and many other countries like Korea, that tariffs has protected their industry. Same question for you, Congressman Neal. If a tariff protects American manufacturing jobs but makes families pay more for the product, when is that tradeoff worth it? This is a very clear difference between the two of us. She has said that the argument over tariffs are false. And incidentally, I supported and sponsored the $80 billion for the IRS that worked with Danny Arnolfo. Trump undid it. She has suggested that the cost of milk, $4.49 as of last night, the cost of Hamburg, $6.50 a pound, the cost of gasoline, $4.15 per gallon. None of that she has suggested relates to tariffs because she argues that the tariff issue is a false one. That's a direct quote from her. My argument has been that if the Trump administration, if they don't like the result of a presidential election in Brazil, we have tariffs. Look what has happened to Canada. I've never met anybody that was mad at Canada. Look what's happened to our relationships with Europe because of these tariffs. And the retaliation that has come have not been helpful to the American family. Tariffs are a tax on the middle class. She has said that's a false argument. I disagree. Thank you, Congressman. But I do want to follow up with you. Should a president have to get congressional approval to keep new tariffs in place beyond 60 days, regardless of which party holds the White House? Great question. I went over to the Supreme Court, filed a friend of the court brief against the Trump tariffs, listened to the arguments over three and a half hours. Tariffs are a tax the president should seek congressional approval. The Supreme Court sided with me, and they sided my friend of the court brief in that particular instance. What we're witnessing here with tariffs is the punitive actions, rather than using a scalpel, the president is using a bazooka, not based upon tax policy, who he likes and who he dislikes, who he's mad at, whether Canada should be the 51st state, Greenland should become part of America. These are the arguments that we need to push back against. Thank you, Congressman. We're going to turn our attention now to the war in Iran. Congressman Neal, you have supported congressional efforts to stop unauthorized military action in Iran. Would you vote to prohibit spending on offensive military operations there without congressional authorization while preserving money to protect American troops and bring them home? Yes, I would, and I have said so, and I have voted accordingly to try to stop the war in Iran. But let me tell you how far back my DNA goes. I'm one of the few people that voted against the war in Iraq. I got up and spoke against it. The president's position as it relates to the war in Iran is a war of choice. He has made this determination. We are paying for higher fuel costs. We are paying good higher costs for the food that we eat. We're paying for not only these efforts, but we're paying for across the board on table related issues in our homes because of this war of choice. He made that decision and he is threatened, by the way, to expand that decision after the midterm elections. My record as it relates to Iran and the Iraq war is very clear. And I don't think that the sincerity of it can be challenged. Ms. Milliron, your website makes the claim, you've also said it here a couple of times, that you will vote against funding foreign wars. Is that an absolute position, or are there circumstances in which you would vote to authorize and fund American military action? Only defensive action would I authorize to fund, not aggressive action as we are doing today. And we have this endless foreign war which is enriching the elite around the world. If you are the moderator, you cannot allow the other person to say what I believe. I think everything he said about Trump tariffs is correct. Neil cannot characterize my positions for me. I am here to characterize my own positions. I support labor and their tariff policy and not what Trump has done from labor. And I agree with what the congressman has done in terms of the Supreme Court in disciplining the president. Thank you very much. We're going to shift gears a little bit now to stock trading and ownership. Ms. Milliron, what restrictions, if any, should be placed on members of Congress, their spouses and dependent children when it comes to buying or selling stock in individual companies? There are already a lot of restrictions, even for a candidate. And so anything that would influence a representative, an elected official to do something for a company or for industry. For example, my opponent has accepted $5,000 from a Minogue PAC, which also funded President Trump. So, yes, that should all be restricted. I don't have any PAC money. I don't have any organizations giving money to me. I use the money from the Boeing court case to fund the campaign. And I do have a few individual contributions. But it's largely self-funded from blood money, from my daughter dying on a Boeing plane. It gives me the opportunity to run. On the other hand, Mr. Neal is accepting PAC money that funded President Trump. Thank you. I do want to ask you a question. If you would follow the standard that Congress sets in your own household, follow the stock ownership standards, even if Congress does not pass it in your own household. Yes. Very good. Congressman Neal, same question to you. What restrictions, if any, should be placed on members of Congress, their spouses and dependent children when it comes to buying or selling stock in individual companies? I'm against members of Congress trading stocks, period. I have voted accordingly. What my opponent just said, which is interesting as it relates to that very issue, her mailing address at her home has been MAGA-based. Project 2025 was a mailing address at her home. This suggestion that she could deny all of these things over the course of this election campaign is ridiculous. My relationship with stock trading is non-existent. I have never traded a stock since I've been in Congress. It should be outlawed for every member of Congress. They should not be able to actively trade stocks during their time in Congress, period. Thank you very much. We're going to shift now to artificial intelligence. The AI boom has contributed heavily to economic growth in this country, but there have recently been warnings from those in the AI industry that this technology could be a threat to humanity itself. There have been growing calls from members of Congress to regulate or slow down AI development, but the current administration is strongly opposed to any sort of federal regulation. Congressman Neal, do you support federal guardrails on artificial intelligence? And if so, what should those guardrails look like? I certainly do. And I think that there needs to be standards that are embraced, passed into legislation on that very basis. Here's the big problem that confronts us as it relates to AI. We need to be mindful of the fact that we don't want to ever substitute our human values for artificial intelligence. And that is where we are headed based on warnings that have come from that very industry. When I look at AI, it's caused a decline in reading. It's caused a decline in our ability to discern. And it's quickly becoming a substitute for the judgments we make. Here's the interesting part of the question you asked, though, Patrick. We don't want to get in the way of creativity and innovation, but we do want to understand the role that federal regulation would play in making sure that this is not harmful to the American family. We don't want to substitute artificial intelligence for the human values we have all learned and consumed along the way. So let me ask you, Congressman, what, if anything, are you working on in Congress currently to prevent large-scale job losses, say? Well, I think that's part of the argument that we have here. And I think that's why we need to have a better understanding precisely of what AI means for the economy. Nobody knows at this particular time, as it relates to health care and other disciplines, what this is going to mean. You can hear a compelling argument from people in Silicon Valley that it won't have a big impact on jobs. I think it's going to have a big impact on jobs. We need to be prepared for that eventuality. And I think that's why the guardrails need to be put in place also to include the idea of congressional oversight. I think that's an acceptable principle that we can all abide. Thank you very much. Ms. Miller, on the same question to you, do you support federal guardrails on artificial intelligence? And if so, what should those guardrails look like? Yes, I do support it. I'm worried about data centers, you know, getting taking all of our water and electricity and making everything very expensive. And I also have to address the blatant falsehood that Mr. Neal is perpetrating, saying that the Coalition for a Prosperous America address, which is a which is a nonprofit and a bipartisan nonprofit. And you can see that he put up these names of people that funded my campaign, one of whom is a Democrat and also a board member of the Coalition for a Prosperous America. And he is calling that nonprofit MAGA. So we depend on our legislators to tell the truth and to say what is real. And he is distorting what is actually real to make me look like I can't be MAGA. I didn't vote for Trump and I wouldn't support him in any way. Thank you very much. Social Security's trustees project that the Retirement and Survivor Trust Fund will exhaust its reserves in late 2032. Money would still come in, but only enough to pay about 78% of scheduled benefits. Congressman Neal, you have called for wealthier Americans to pay more to strengthen Social Security. What specific tax change would you vote for, and how much of the funding gap would it close? Thank you, Patrick. I know something about Social Security. I was raised on survivor benefits. The bedrock guarantee of Social Security in my life is enough of an example for me to stay with the argument of expanding Social Security. On the WEP Act, GPO, the Firefighters Union endorsed me last Friday based on my work. Joe Biden singled me out at the White House for my work. Next Friday, I will address the Massachusetts retirees based on the argument that I offered to get this over the line. Easiest way to do this, Patrick, and I intend to hold hearings right away if we're successful in November, raise the earnings cap. It's at about $186,000 right now. Wealthy people need to pay more. Social Security is a generational contract that we need to honor and to embrace. Thank you very much. Ms. Miller, on your website, it says Social Security benefits should better reflect the cost of living. How would you pay for both higher benefits and the benefits the program has already promised? So what Congressman Neal just said is fantastic. And I haven't ever heard him say that before, to put a tax on income over $184,000. And he could have done that. He could have done that years ago. And there's been a bill in his committee to bring Social Security up to the payments of today, up to the cost of living of today. And he's never taken care of that. And all the 38 years he's been in Congress. And he also did not support the Social Security Fairness Act. He blocked it. And you can see that because a Republican and a Democrat had to get a discharge petition to go around Richard Neal and right to the floor of the House to bring it to a vote. And then, of course, he voted for it. And Biden had him sign it. And then he took credit for it. But he didn't support it all that time. It had to go around him. We brought a delegation down to Schumer's office and pressured Schumer to bring it to the floor of the Senate. Thank you very much, folks. That completes the question and answer portion of today's debate. We want to thank both candidates. We will now move on to closing statements. based on the drawing prior to this debate. Ms. Milleran, you get to go first. You have 60 seconds. The congressman has talked about how he has had so many successes after 38 years, during his 38 years of work. So if that's the case, why are we worse off? I will be accessible. I will be available. I will not be shorting debates from the offered, the TV station, Channel 22 offered us an hour. Richard shorted it to a half an hour. We are having a responsive, interactive town hall meeting tomorrow at 52 Sumner Street. You are all invited. Richard is also invited. And I am there with people, interactive and present and responsive to them. He actually did not help us at all with the Aviation Safety Act, despite his statements. So vote for a change in our decline. Vote to get out of the financial situation we are facing. Vote to get no federal income tax on the income you earn under $100,000. Vote for me November 3rd. Thank you very much, Congressman. You have 60 seconds for your closing statements. Thanks, Patrick, very much. Thanks to Channel 22 and thanks to my opponent here. I'm proud of reopening North Adams Hospital. I'm proud of East-West North-South Rail. I'm proud of $264 million for the Soldiers' Home. I'm proud of what I did during the COVID Act. I'm proud of what we did with the rescue package, when everybody got a paycheck across this country and thousands and thousands of businesses were saved. How about the infrastructure bill? I'm proud of that, the tax side of it, the Ways and Means Committee wrote. How about the CHIPS Act? I'm proud of that. Standing outside when I drove in this morning, the labor union people whose pensions were saved with the Butch Lewis Act, the WEP Act and the Social Security Act, we repaired that breach for Social Security recipients. This career has been marked by achievement upon achievement upon achievement. I want to thank you, and I ask once again for your vote on November 3rd. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes our debate between the candidates for Massachusetts' first congressional district. We want to thank both Congressman Richard Neal and Nadia Milleran for being with us today to answer these important questions. And please don't forget, Election Day is Tuesday, November 3rd, and early voting is currently underway. Remember to stay with 22 News, www.lp.com, and the 22 News Plus app for extended coverage and results on election night. From all of us here at 22 News, thank you for watching.