House hopefuls face off in debate
12 questions posed to candidates for 1st Congressional District
The three candidates running to replace longtime Rep. Pete Visclosky in the House of Representatives have different stances on the environment, health care, immigration, education and gun laws.
Democratic nominee Frank Mrvan, Republican nominee Mark Leyva and Libertarian nominee Edward Mike Strauss shared their views in a lightning-round debate, where they each had one minute to answer 12 questions. At the start and end of the debate, aired Tuesday on Lakeshore Public Media, each candidate had one minute for opening and closing remarks.
Visclosky, D-Gary, announced in November that he would not seek reelection after 35 years in Congress. The seat has been held by a Democrat since 1931.
Mrvan said he was the candidate to “bring like-minded individuals” together to address issues facing the country, like helping people access mental health care and jobs, and he mentioned twice that Visclosky endorsed him during the primary election.
Leyva said he was a pro-gun, pro-life candidate who will focus on creating better jobs. Strauss said he would fight to “rebuild” the nation where people can “follow their own dreams in their own ways without interference from government.”
When asked about the Environmental Protection Agency, Mrvan said he would support legislation that ensures “they have the teeth and the ability to be able to prevent discharge into Lake Michigan and make sure that we have clean air and clean water.”
Strauss said current environmental legislation doesn’t work because “businesses still pollute, people still pollute.” With that in mind, Strauss said he would “strengthen” environmental policy by that will help residents to “take advantage of full restitution for any proven liability.”
The country’s environmental laws “are good to protect safety of our environment,” Leyva said, but no agency “should be passing laws or any kind of regulations that do not go through Congress.”
When asked about how their plan to preserve the recreational Lake Michigan lakefront and prevent toxic materials from the industrial park from entering the lake, Leyva said it is not a federal
issue and “should be up to state legislators to come up with solutions on a local issue, a state issue.”
But, if the state needs federal funding for help, then Congress can step in, Leyva said, adding his doesn’t view this “as a Constitutional issue.” State legislators have been working to pass laws to address Lake Michigan erosion, and have been blocked from requesting federal funds because the state hasn’t declared the erosion a state of emergency.
Mrvan said that about 40 miles of Lake Michigan shoreline from Whiting east are facing “devastating erosion,” which he attributed to high water levels and climate change. If elected, Mrvan said he’d “work together with all entities” on the local, state and federal level to address the issue.
Strauss reiterated that people should be able to receive restitution if impacted by environmental changes and businesses should be held accountable for their own expenses.
The candidates were asked what legislation they would propose if the Affordable Care Act were to be repealed. Mrvan said the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for health insurance and that he supports the Affordable Care Act and ensuring there are provisions to cover preexisting conditions.
Leyva said he supports a free market plan, protecting preexisting conditions, transparent billing and removing government roles in health care.
Strauss agreed that the Affordable Care Act “has absolutely devastated not only Americans but our health care system in general” by increasing pricing.
“We need to provide legislation that will allow for medical providers, given them incentives to offer discounts to uninsured Americans, so that way they can afford health care on the wages that they’re earning,” Strauss said.
When asked if they support the Trump administration’s immigration and asylum policies and, if not, how the system can be repaired, Leyva said he supports the policies and the first step is to continue building the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The administration’s push to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program “that our court systems overturned,” should be decided by Congress, Leyva said. In June, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to terminate the DACA program.
Mrvan said that as a North Township trustee he helped create resources for immigrants — like citizenship classes and English as a Second Language classes — on their pathway to citizenship. Mrvan said he supports a policy that “attracts talent” but making sure “the process is working” and providing a pathway to citizenship.
“I am not for a wall, but what I am for is America being the best country in the entire world and making sure we attract the world,” Mrvan.
Strauss said he “is for immigration and open borders,” but he doesn’t believe in encouraging people to come to the U.S. to receive welfare, health care or “any type of government subsidy.”
“We are a great nation for a lot of reasons and those reasons should be the reasons why immigrants want to come here ,” Strauss said.
When asked if the federal government should restrict the type of guns people can buy, Strauss said “all that really should need to be said is the Second Amendment is the Second Amendment.”
Leyva referenced a 1997 study by University of Chicago economists John Lott and David Mustard that made the case for less restrictive gun laws and concluded legislation allowing concealed carry permits was “the most cost-effective method of reducing crime thus far.”
In the decades since the economists’ study, other academic studies have “strongly suggested that the opposite is true: that these laws lead to higher rates of violent crime,” according to a June 2017 article in The Atlantic.