(00:00:00) Welcome to the 1990 Minnesota's seventh congressional district debate. We are guests in the Television Studios at Concordia College in Moorhead. I'm Judy Hollins from the Moorhead area League of Women Voters. The sponsor of this debate. The league is a nonpartisan organization open to all citizens. We do not endorse or support candidates. Our interest is in providing the public with information about the issues participants in this debate are Congressman Arlen stainland candidate of the independent Republican party and Collin Peterson candidate of the democratic-farmer-labor party Congressman staying on is a family farmer currently in his seventh term in the US House of Representatives. He serves on the house agriculture committee and the house Public Works committee prior to his Congressional service Congressman staying on served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 1966 to 1974 Collin Peterson stir served for 10 years in the Minnesota state. It currently the co-owner of an accounting firm in Detroit Lakes. He has a Bachelor of Arts degree from or hates Morehead State University with a double major in Business Administration and accounting. He has 46 years old and has three sons for local media representatives were present their questions to the candidates. Let me introduce Susan or Randi Kaye CCM, Minnesota Public Radio Kathy coil KX J. BT V Johnson for the Forum and Steve bergesen. Wday TV, the format was agreed upon by both candidates prior to this debate. There will be opening statements followed by questions from the panelists Patty crack avoid voter service chair Port person of the League of Women Voters will act as timer Congressman staying on the will begin with the first opening statement. Now (00:01:56) thank you Judy first. I'd like to thank the League of Women Voters for hosting this debate. I'd like to thank Concordia College for making their facilities available for our presentation. I'd like to also thank the panel here who are here to question. Let me say that this has been a very very different kind of campaign different kind of election the Press of business in Washington working out the budget and the budget deficit problems that we have on the federal level has prevented me from being back in the district until just yesterday the last last weekend I had to stay in Washington was home the weekend before that and then the previous two weekends. I was in Washington because we were having votes on Saturday and votes on Sunday. So it's shortened up the the actual campaign time and makes it very difficult to travel through the district and get get to see as many people as you'd like to see in a in a campaign. You know, I think this is a very Important election not only for what we have done. But for what we have left undone. I'm extremely concerned with the direction of the Congress took in the final hours. When we pass that budget, it's called a budget deficit reduction package. However, in that budget deficit reduction package, we cut Farm program spending over the next five years 30 and a half billion dollars, but more importantly in that budget deficit reduction package. We allow federal spending to increase by 80 billion dollars a year for the five years of the bill for every dollar in taxes. We're going to increase spending by about a dollar and 80 cents. We're not going to make much Headway on a deficit, you know, ironically and then tragically I think the the Congress even the administration the president refused to look at a freeze where a flexible freeze for next year would have saved forty billion dollars with no taxes and held the growth of government spending. I think that's important. We have expanded far too many dollars over the last number of years far more dollars than what we have taken in in revenue. And as a result of that we find ourselves in this deficit situation, you know, we are now mortgaging not only our children but our grandchildren and their Futures with the debt we have and it's time to come to a halt. No, I say that it's important to the next Congress and on down because the premises the assumptions that this budget deficit package are based on an assumption that by 95 inflation will be two point four percent interest 4.2% and crude oil costs $20 a barrel and those assumptions tell me and it should tell you that this budget deficit reduction package is a package. That's built on quicksand. Thank you, mr. Peterson. (00:04:49) Thank you very much. I too want to thank the League of Women Voters Concordia College friends in the press and everyone for putting on this debate. I'm glad that we're finally able to engage in dialogue between my opponent myself. It's been a kind of like Shadow Boxing out here with all this going on in Washington. I read in the paper is one of the papers this morning that they called this the hundred and worst Congress, which I've been hearing as I go out and travel around the countryside people are upset about what's going on in Washington and I think that out of all of what all the mud through the bad press that the congressman got out there. I think the House Republicans actually came out the worst because they really showed no leadership in this battle over the budget deficit when it came time to put forward a package. They could not come up with a package that could be voted on in the floor of the house because it was a hundred billion dollars short of the five. Billion dollar deficit reduction that they were looking for and I don't believe that that 500 billion dollars is enough and you know, it's curious President Bush Senator Bob Dole the minority leader of the Senate House minority leader Bob Michael all said that we needed additional revenues to get something done with this deficit. It was only the house Republican some members of the House Republican caucus including my opponent that that said that we didn't need any new revenues. I think that President Bush talked about the flexible freeze that we just heard my opponent talking about and he's now drop that idea, you know, the only thing that's happened in the last 13 years is that the taxes of the wealthiest Americans have went down $40,000 per year, but the taxes of the middle income people the farmers and the self-employed in the 7th District have went up four hundred dollars per year the For that is because they raise self-employment taxes and Social Security taxes would hit which hit the middle class more than any other group since my opponent has been in Congress health care costs of went from 240 billion to 500 billion dollars a year yet. They have come up with no plug program. My opponent poses a national health insurance system which sits over 60% of the people in the United States think that we ought to have and lastly this Congress is the congressman said cut farm programs. This is what I predicted in 1985 when we campaigned on the 85 Farm Bill Mike biggest objection with that bill was that it put the farmers income at the Jeopardy of the federal budget process and I predicted that we were going to get into the situation where they wouldn't deal with this budget deficit. They would come back and have to cut the budget. And the first thing they would cut would be farm income and that's exactly what they did. This is a bad Bill. I've been talking to the farmers and a lot of folks are not sure how they're going to survive this situation with this farm bill. I hope we can talk more about that as we go along. (00:07:49) Thank you. Mr. Peterson Susan or Randy from Casey CM radio will address the first question to Congressman staying when first mr. Peterson will have a chance to answer the same question. And then if you care to rebut the answer, there's a three-way Choice. Okay, Susan, would you like to begin? Yes. The first question I have is on the budget and Congress has just returned from passing a budget agreement Congressman stanlon voted against the package and I was wondering whether or not you ever felt that shutting down the government was ever an issue or whether you felt that you had endangered in any way the voters in your District by voting no on the packages and possibly endangering the people who expected Services out of the government that could have been lost and for Collin Peterson had you been in Washington. How would you have voted on the budget package? And (00:08:41) why well, first of all, I questioned very highly if if we would shut down the government that puts a lot of pressure. President but that's a pressure that he has to accept when we fail to meet the budget deficit the requirements when we fail to meet our deadlines, it's been traditional to pass a continuing resolution that continuing resolution is passed at the current levels of spending in other words, the spendings of the 1990 levels and consequently that continuing resolution that's frozen at those levels is a saving device in itself. There was no way that we could shut down the federal government. You can't shut down the air traffic controllers. You can't shut down Social Security. You can't shut down a whole host of essential functions of government. And so it was my firm belief that the President should have signed can the continuing resolution should have kept the government going while the budget negotiators will try to work on this budget. (00:09:37) Mr. Pearson, (00:09:39) I wouldn't have supported the package. They came closer in the end to something that I might might have went along with it. I did initially but I had some problems with it for one thing. I still think that the tax portion of this and I'm not for taxes by the way. Nobody is for taxes know if he likes to pay taxes. What I do for a living is help people make sure that they pay a minimum amount of tax when I helped him prepare their returns, but I would have liked to have seen them put the top rates back up closer to where they were before we got into this whole tax cutting steam in the 1980s. I would have opposed the farm Cuts. We didn't need to cut farm income the way they did it. If we just raised the loan rates, we could have saved this money by reducing the budget exposure that way rather than the way that they went about it putting a new tax on farmers. And by the way, my opponent who is against taxes I voted for the farm bill which for the first time places attacks on. Farmers and Dairy Farmers are going to now pay five cents next year and 11 cents a year after that assessments against their (00:10:45) production per (00:10:46) hundredweight. And the last problem I had is cutting Medicare. I don't I wouldn't have supported that if we had a national health insurance. They wouldn't have to be talking about cutting (00:10:55) Medicare. Yes, there is. You know, it's interesting. I think was just early last week on a radio talk show and st. Cloud calling that you said you just supported the Democrat package. You may know qualifications, you would support the Democratic budget deficit reduction package, which unit had Cuts in Medicare which in turn had cuts and farm program, which it had excessive spending over the next five years. So you've got to decide what you're for, you're either for one thing or for the other thing which can't be for everything. You know, we have a choice out there to vote Yes or no. There's no line item veto for a congressman. There's no way to amend a budget deficit package. You accept or reject. What's before you I think in the long run this this budget is going to prove harmful to the American public the American economy in my opening remarks. I said, it's essential who goes back to Congress because we're going to have to vote for more taxes again or cut spending or hold the line on spending, you know, you say you're against taxes, but will you in the state senate you did nothing but raise. And you said you went to help elk we settle a budget deficit there. We've checked the record and (00:12:12) No doubt, both of you care a great deal about the farmer both of you have grown up on the farm. But at a time when Farm subsidies have been cut as you've already mentioned the price of wheat is not high enough to even pay the poor Farmer for the cost of production. The weather is not cooperating The Weather Service says they need at least 30 inches of rain to really soak the ground before next spring and the executives of the farm organizations have recently toured Minnesota North Dakota. They say the next wave of the farm crisis is just around the corner. What would you to specifically do for the farmer? Not necessarily in money because we've talked about the money problems in Washington but in leadership in general This first. (00:12:55) Well, first of all, I wouldn't support we have to go back to 1985 where all this started was the 85 Farm Bill. And I predicted the scenario that is unfortunately happened. Now when farmers can least afford it they've cut farm income because they set this plan in motion in 1985 and they don't really have any choice if they're going to continue this kind of a program. I am totally opposed to this kind of a program that we have for Farmers. It's the wrong way to go what we ought to be doing for. All of the Commodities is what we do for sugar beet farmers and that is support the prices with a loan program that raises the prices to the cost of production plus the profit and then we should take the money that we save by doing that because what that does is it reduces the budget exposure and eliminates these deficiency payments put that money into the export enhancement program and then by down the price of exports directly, which a lot of other people are doing we can we can accomplish maintaining farm income. We can keep our exports we can make the program work if we just had some people in Washington that would support that kind of a program problem is we A lot of people from firing districts that are supporting this other approach. They've gotten us in trouble and it's time for a (00:14:08) change. Well, first of all, let me say that I did not vote for the budget. I was opposed to cutting 30 and a half billion out of the farm program. But when the 13 half billion dollars were cut we had an obligation and responsibility to write the best deal with in those economic and financial parameters that we could within this bill. There are some features that that are good what a cut supports will cut supports down the line drastically. It's back loaded in 1991. The farmers are going to feel very little impact on his farm bill. There's there's a flexible base comes into play. If you're above the 50,000 payment limitation good number of our farmers are that are in the commodity programs. We can feed grains. You'll feel minimal impact. If you're below the 50,000 limitation, you'll feel some impact. There is allowance therefore a flexibility to plant other crops if they're other crops that are desirable as far as Market the market price concerned there's this I mean marketing lawn and oil seeds marketing loan. I beg your pardon that for the first time gives oil seeds a chance to get in and be competitive with corn wheat up in this country. There's a provision for minor will cease to be planned on 0 92 acres and still get the deficiency payment of those 0932. There are options with this within this bill for farmers and as many of my colleagues and particularly a congressman Dan Glickman who is the chairman of the weed and feed grain subcommittee out of Kansas said we're going to be back next Congress. We're going to be back in Congress after that before this bill expires if need be we can make some adjustments. Thank you. (00:15:44) Thank you. Is there a bus? (00:15:45) Yeah. Well, you know we talked about these new flexible Acres. I think those are going to cause more of a problem (00:15:52) than a solution (00:15:52) they put in place this loan as my opponent mentioned on soybeans and some of the other Commodities and I think that the potential in this area is to is to cut the price of those Commodities and have the price fall to the loan rate which we've seen Happen with the with the other Commodities, so I really don't see anything positive in this Farm Bill other than some conservation measures and so forth the farmers that I talk to are scared to death about what's going to happen out there. I think we're going to see more operators fall off the cliff and this next few months and these are going to be good substantial Farmers that are going to go down under this bill. It just does not work for a lot of people. (00:16:36) Thank you Congressman staying on will have the first response to the next question, which is from John son of or of the Forum Congressman 1990 has become a (00:16:46) referendum on personal conduct. We have seen a number of Republicans and Democrats return home under a political political cloud in Minnesota alone. We have had Senator Republican senator, Dave durenberger denounced by his peers last night John grunts Seth (00:17:02) withdrew from the governor's (00:17:03) race because of a scandal and there are questions about your conduct in Washington. The voters of the 7th District are still waiting for an explanation of your taxpayer paid telephone calls to Eve Jarvis for mr. Peterson. I would like to know there (00:17:19) are rumors going around about your (00:17:22) contact and I think that the voters would like to know that that we're going to be sending Congressman do Congress that are that do have good integrity and do we have good standard standards of personal conduct and I'd like you both to address that (00:17:34) issue. Thank you. Mr. Spengler first. (00:17:37) Oh John last February. I had a press conference at that time. I told you you the Pressed. I told the voting public that those were business calls. They are still business calls. You're not satisfied with the answer. That's too bad. The public will have to be satisfied. You know, they talk about seven hundred eighty dollars in taxpayer paid calls. We have that telephone credit card used for business. But over the 14 years. I've been in Congress. I've returned two hundred and seventy thousand dollars of taxpayer money out of my congressional office allowance back to the treasury, that's 270 thousand dollars over 14 years that we could have spent we could have spent in mailings. We could have spent in staff salaries. We could have spent it in travel. However, we want it to I didn't believe we needed that and we return that last year in the Congress the average Congressman returned four thousand dollars from his office allowance account. I return $14,000. So I think I've been Frugal with the taxpayer dollar and I think I've been a responsible to the voters of this District. (00:18:43) Thank you. Mr. Peterson. (00:18:45) Well, you know I as I campaign, I know there are questions about number of these issues people mentioned to me about the telephone calls and and whether they were business related or not. My position has been that that it's out there that people are aware of them. And I guess it's for them to decide whether this explanation is one that they think is appropriate or not. It's it's not for really for me to comment whether whether this is appropriate or not. I think it's something the voters need to to look at there have been some Anonymous letters floating around the district with the false accusations. Nobody signed it and I have some ideas of where that came from. But you know, what we need is we need to have some changes in the way we Finance campaigns. He'd we need to change, you know, the reduce the influence of the special interest in this whole process. I think that the public is upset about the Congress because they see that the special interest control Congress and we need to get public financing. We need to put some caps on campaign spending and and try to get some more accountability. So the public feels better about their elected (00:20:07) representatives. Thank you. Mr. Peterson. Is there a rebuttal? Okay. The next question will be answered by mr. Peterson first. It will be directed by Steve bergesen from wday TV. (00:20:21) I would have liked to have done a follow-up on that. But as long as (00:20:24) mr. Peterson is the person to be addressed first, I will proceed with another question right now. The S&L bailout is causing us a lot of problems and it will for many many years to come (00:20:36) both of you gentlemen, I would like your assessment of the situation and how do we get get out of this (00:20:41) mess? Mr. Peterson? (00:20:43) well, it's it's a kind of a thing that it's kind of the horse has gotten out of the barn and they're all you have to do now is clean up the mess that has been created. I think that the people that supported the deregulation plan the people that refuse to vote for the early bailout in 1987 are the ones that the folks ought to be looking at when they're trying to figure out how to start cleaning this mess up my opponent voted against tougher penalties when that came up in 1989 and you know, we should have had some leadership on this issue people knew that this problem existed way back in 1982 and 83 and they just swept it under the rug and it's indicative of the problems that we have in Washington is that they're more interested in getting re-elected then they are and doing the kinds of things and need to be done whether it's a savings and loan situation whether it's a budget they keep putting these things off because it's politically more expedient to wait and get past the next election and I think that we need some people in Washington are going to be more About about doing what needs to be done making the tough votes. It makes your job harder because you have to come home and explain why you you're making these votes, but that's what we need right now. We need to change in Washington with some people that are going to go out there and make the tough votes and clean up some of these methods. (00:22:04) Thank you. Mr. Scanlon. (00:22:05) Well, first of all, let's get it straight that it wasn't only deregulation that caused the problems the problems were causing the political Arena, you know, the there were political powers and pressures that didn't allow The Regulators to step in and close down savings SNL's at risk and let me just cite the names Deacon Seany Regal Cranston senators all interfere with Regulators when Regulators want to close down some high-risk SN else. All Democrats and all under investigation in the house, right Coelho Saint-Germain right and call argon as as is Saint-Germain all because of SNL scandals. (00:22:47) Okay. Mr. Peterson. Do you have do you have a rebuttal? (00:22:51) Well, you know, he can cite the all the names you want. Those people don't represent the Seventh District of Minnesota Congressman stainland represented us and when he was needed to make the tough votes he didn't make them and that's why we're in this kind of problem with the Savings and Loan situation. We're going to pay our kids are going to pay for years to come because they fumbled the ball in this and just one more thing that people are disgusted about and you see signs all over the countryside saying vote out the incumbents. And the reason for those signs is because of the kinds of things that happen with the savings alone and the budget and some of these other issues that have not been addressed. (00:23:27) Thank you Congressman staying on will have the first response to the next question, which is from Susan or andk CCM. The economy of the 7th District is changing out of necessity. It is becoming more Diversified and many small communities are attempting Economic Development. What would you do to facilitate economic development in the 7th District? (00:23:49) It's just a name. Well, first of all Susan I'm the author of the rural Enterprise Zone legislation that would allow tax incentives and other incentives to employers who develop and build in rural areas. However, the role Enterprise Zone legislation is not going to have a great impact on some of our communities because it's based on income and unemployment just numbers, you know, I think we have to work with the local communities. There has to be an effort on local bond that behalf of local communities communities themselves and I think Fergus Falls is a success story more had a less of a success story but somewhat Perma great success story of what communities will do and can do when they work together. We have to be concerned when you look at what this This new farm bill is going to do when you look at what the budget is going to do. We've got to be concerned about developing and encouraging industry and business in rural areas. And the logical thing to look for is to be looking for industries that process the raw product that's produced here and the government has to play a hand in that but the government can't do it all I think there has to be local leadership on economic development and a continued to emphasis and it can encourage ment on the part of the federal government to enhance that development to maintain and provide those job opportunities in rural areas. (00:25:10) Thank you. Mr. Peterson. (00:25:11) Well that all sounds real good, but and I support Enterprise Zone legislation, but that bills Maynard introduced has been in the hopper for a long time and it hasn't passed the fact of the matter is we got problems out here that need to be addressed now and I don't think that the that there's any government program that's going to come out of Washington that's going to help us in the near term. We've got to do something. In the near future not five ten years from now. So one of the ideas that I have is to take the staff have less staff in Washington DC more staff out in the district and work with those local communities chamber of commerce's and trying to help them put together Economic Development activities. One of the things that I've been doing since I've been out of offices working somewhat in Economic Development, and when you have people on board that are committed and know what they doing with their doing it works we can bring jobs into this area. So what I'd like to do is take the resources of the Congress Congressional office, which belong to the people of the 7th District and focus those resources out here in the district working with local communities trying to attract some of these jobs to the rural areas so we can keep our young people at home keep the tax base at home and try to turn this economy (00:26:26) around Congressman staying. When do you have a rebuttal? I know. Okay. We'll proceed to the next question which will be directed to mr. Peterson first from Kathy Coy like a xjb TV. I'd like to give the two of you a chance to speak to leadership. There's an article that John here wrote for the form newspaper was published on Sunday October 14th on the front page and it showed that Arlen stanlon in the past 13 years had written legislation that we might call fluff items had named an airport in Chicago after John Ferry at our there had named a courthouse in Denver after Byron Rogers things like this, but at the same time I'd like the congressman to come in on that but also, mr. Peterson, I'd like to know how you won't just become a possible face in Washington a huge City where Money Talks. How would you make a difference not just be another One of the many many Congressmen. Mr. Peterson first. (00:27:32) Well, I guess what I'd have to point to is the work that I did in the state senate. I was pretty active legislator. Some people criticize me called me a bill machine because I carried a lot of legislation. I was successful in passing a lot of legislation and I think I was able to make a difference in the state senate. Now, I understand that. It's different in Washington and I understand that that being among minority member is different than being in the majority, but I'm convinced that that you can make a difference when I was elected to the state senate. They told me that I couldn't become a member of the Senate tax committee as a freshman. I became a member of the set of tax committee. I was a member of the conference committee. One of the first times the Freshman has been appointed to the tax conference committee and served on that committee the entire 10 years that I was in the Senate. I think that I'm going to take that same kind of attitude Washington. I'm not going to sit back and wait, I'm going to Rattle some cages. I think right now we need a congressman who's going to be someone that is going to be a little unconventional. It's going to push a little bit and that's what I intend to do. And I'll have to do is point at what I've done in the state senate and I think people can see what kind of a legislator I (00:28:46) will be. Mr. Sting. (00:28:48) Well, I think it's ludicrous 44 media to try to compare the Congressional records with State House and Senate records. I was in the state house. I know how that works. You look at the the records of legislative initiative on mr. Sabel. Mr. Mr. Penny, mr. Webber, mr. Frenzel, mr. Sikorsky and even mr. Oberstar of things they have initiated that have happened and it's minimal. We have that. I don't have it with me. I'd be happy to share with you some time Cathy. I've been a leader in Congress. I've served on the last three agricultural conference committees in 1981. I was a partial conferee on for the sugar section wrote that section in 85 and 80. And this last one I was a general Khan free and I was the only upper Midwestern that was a general conferee in this agriculture committee. Also a leader on the public works and transportation committee for five years for five. I've been the one on the Republican side responsible for initiating and in writing and drafting the legislation on clean water on the house Public Works share a Superfund on a number of other issues that come before that Committee in the Congress. You work through your committee assignments. (00:30:05) Mr. Peterson, do you care to (00:30:06) everybody? Yes, I would you know, the congressman says that he's a leader on agriculture yet. They have produced the worst farm bill in my opinion that we've ever seen in the history of this country. Now, that's leadership. I don't know. I'm not hearing that out here from the PPL Public Works. He says he's a leader gets involved in these conservation issues and he's gets a zero from the league of conservation voters. He's named to The Dirty Dozen. I don't think that's leadership and lastly, you know, he criticized me for raising taxes. I helped Al quie balance the budget I served on seven budget-balancing committees. We did the tough thing and we balanced the budget. He doesn't talk about the tax cuts. I cut taxes more than I raise taxes when I was in the state senate. I provided some leadership and that's what we need in Congress right now. We need somebody who's going to go out there and shake them up rattle some cages and change the things that are happening in, (00:30:54) Washington. Thank you. The next question will be answered by Congressman staying on first it will be directed by John son of or from the Forum. (00:31:08) You're right. I don't buy that I'm not satisfied with the explanation on the telephone calls records show. These calls were made at all hours of the day and night late at night to a woman that everybody indentifies or as I understand it everybody identifies to in Washington as a clerk and you're saying their business (00:31:25) calls. I'd like to know what kind of business you discuss (00:31:27) at 4:00 in the morning. Let me tell you this John, you know, this is a this is a debate to discuss the issues that issue was settled last February. I spoke on that issue last February. I closed that chapter in political discussion. And if you're not satisfied, I'm sorry. I'm willing to say that the public will be satisfied and if they aren't satisfied, then they'll have to vote at the polls to their satisfaction, but I've answered that question. I'm not going to go into it again. I'm not going to open it up. I sometimes begin to wonder if the name of the form is The Enquirer the form (00:32:09) Mr. Peterson do have common. (00:32:11) Well, as I said, the issue is out there. I think people do have questions because they talk to me about it. But I feel it. It's it's up to the voters to decide, you know, whether whether this explanation is appropriate or (00:32:26) not. Is there a bottle (00:32:29) I have great faith in the Buddha of the 7th District? (00:32:32) Okay, I'll go on to the next question the next question which will be answered by. Mr. Peterson. First. The question is from Steve bergesen. Wday. (00:32:40) Gentlemen, rural Healthcare (00:32:42) is a important issue that seems to be growing in importance every day for many of the people in the 7th District and they'll swim real parts of the (00:32:51) America what changes would each of you (00:32:54) propose to ensure quality Healthcare in the rural areas of this country. (00:32:59) Mr. Peterson. (00:33:01) Well, we need we need drastic changes. We cannot Tinker with the system because that's not going to work. I favor something similar to what they've done in Canada and some of the other industrialized nations of this world. Canada spends eight point six percent of their gross national product on health care. We spend 11.1% the Canadians prefer their system over Ours by 95 percent to 3 percent sixty one percent of Americans would like a system similar to what Canada has now I'm not saying that what Canada has is perfect. There's things that I have problems with but it's certainly a lot better than what we have here in the United States. And so I support a drastic change in health care the way we approached it. I support a national health insurance program where you have one entity that sets the standards that holds the cost down when my opponent was elected to congress 13 years ago health care costs in this country were two hundred and forty billion dollars today. There are over 500 billion dollars. We have 37 million people who are not insured and last winter. I had a number of what I consider to be good fairly well-to-do middle-class farmers who had to drop their health insurance because they couldn't afford to pay it. I had one particular family where the premiums went to seven hundred and thirty one dollars a month a dairy farm family. We can't live with that. We've got to have some changes in tinkering with Medicare and making speeches about how your for Rural health care when you vote for the ERG system as my opponent did the caught of the cause a lot of this disparity is not going to get us any place. (00:34:34) Thank you. Mr. Sanguine. (00:34:35) Well, first of all I've been very active in was the one of The Originators of the rural Healthcare Coalition. I'm on the board of that group. Now that's members of Congress from rural areas who are dedicated to make the rural Healthcare delivery system work better. We have made some great strides begin to start to get an equalization of the drgs between the urban and the rural hospitals. This is another thing that was wrong with this budget in the but some budget Summit and in the Democrat plan, there is a hit on Medicare but half that hit comes from to from providers the providers will get the hit and if that's the case of many of our rural hospitals were closed will close we've got to find a way to make real Health Care accessible available and affordable and not an easy task. If you did you adopt the Canadian plan. Independent audit agencies on a Texas maintain that that would cost in this country five hundred billion dollars new money. I was in Oslo Norway here some time ago about four years wrote in a taxi cab drove downtown the taxi driver pointed to a building. He says that's my clinic and as we mean your clinic I thought you had National Health Care he says but when I get sick and want to be taken care of I wanted right now, so I bought him. I'm a partner in that clinic. So the Scandinavian countries European countries and creating systems are not all that picture. Perfect. We've got problems. There's no question about it. I think we can solve (00:36:04) thank you. Is there a rebuttal? Mr. (00:36:06) Peters? Yes, there is, you know, it doesn't do any good to have to be on commissions and to say that you're studying this and that we should do something about it because the truth of the matter is that things have gotten worse and they're not getting any better and I don't know, you know who's funding this study. I assume the AMA the American Medical Association because they've been trying to discredit these kinds of ideas. There's only two countries in the world. All the still have a system like this us and South Africa. The other countries are doing a better job at cost less money in Canada. The administration costs are 1.6 percent of the what they spend in here in the United States is close to 6% When you look at the statistics, we're going downhill on infant mortality. We're not keeping up with our other industrialized countries in terms of the kind of care that we're providing. Our people our system isn't working. It doesn't do any good to have people members of Congress saying that I've started this commission and I am studying this we've been we've had too many studies. We need to send some people to Washington or not captives of the special interests are going to vote the tough votes to change this thing and get a system that's going to work. Thank you for once and for all nothing like being cut (00:37:11) off is there. Okay what proceed to the next question which will be directed to Congressman staying on first. The question is from Susan or Randi Kaye CCM. Clean air legislation has finally been produced. What is your assessment of the legislation and its impact on the 7th District, especially on the electric consumer. And also I'd like you to Define please for me what you think and environmentalist is and whether or not you consider yourself one. (00:37:39) I'm not sure I'll have time to answer that in one question was answered very quickly on the Clean Air Act. It was finally passed. It's going to have any impact on consumers. I voted against the bill when I left the house because it had some measures in there that we're going to be punitive to our electrical producers and consumers in this area. I voted fought for the final version as it passed the other day. It's still going to increase electrical rates from 15 and 30% But it will it will move toward the cleaning up the environment cleaning up the air I think in some ways we might have been able to do it the more cost-effective but that was the conference report. That's the way the reported out. Yes. I'm an environmentalist. I'm a conservationist. I believe very strongly and clean environment clean and cut it clean clean environment. But let me tell you when the environmentalist grade you they'll grade you on a whole host of issues. One of the issues that put me in the dirty dozen was the amendment that I offered way back in 1985. They had to go back to 1985 five years ago to And something that I had done that they could smear me with a dirty dozen. There are at least ten members my colleagues that I've talked to all of with identical records. None of whom have difficulty elections who are not on the dirty dozen The Dirty Dozen is intended to be political to damage someone who is in a tight election race. Just that simple. I wish I had gone and there's a lot to be said on the (00:38:59) subject. Thank you. Mr. Peterson. (00:39:02) Well, I would have (00:39:03) supported the Clean Air legislation. I think we need to to make sure that we preserve the air and water and all of our natural resources for future Generations. I think there is a big difference between my opponent myself on these environmental issues. He keeps saying that he's an environmentalist and a conservationist. Well, ladies and gentlemen, you do not get to be 0 with the league of conservation voters if you're an environmentalist. It just doesn't happen. This is not an extreme group. This is a group that's that composed of Sportsmen clubs of mainstream people that are in Interested in conservation issues the The Dirty Dozen, you know, I don't buy that they came up with a plan just to get at our Congressman here in the Seventh District. I don't buy it. I think that you look into my opponents record on environmental issues. You'll see why he got these kinds of ratings. He was forever putting amendments up on the floor of the house. For example, there was a coastal zone reauthorization Bill (00:40:04) time. Thank you. Mr. Stanley. Do you have a metal? Well, (00:40:08) let me say that, you know, the environmental Community the the leaders of that environmental Community will cause a cost of about 50 million dollars per pair of spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest and add an expense of a hundred thousand jobs. They really don't care if they those people live there and work there. They want that habitat enhancement improved and preserved for spotted owls, you know, the leaders of the environmental movement would like to ban the pesticides or herbicides the chemicals that are Farmers need for production Agriculture, and if my opponent wants to vote with them, that's fine. I'd rather be on the dirty dozen and let my constituents know that there's somebody in Washington that has the courage to balance the environment with the economics and with job opportunities for the future and that's what I've done and I'm proud of my record. (00:40:56) Thank you. The next question will be answered by mr. Peterson. First. The question is from Kathy coil kxj. PTV. Both of you have tax backgrounds one is a congressman the other as a CPA or tax worker day after day an accountant studies show that the American public is willing to help make the difference pay off the deficit. They would don't want to continually have the deficit to pass on to their children and there's their children's children. However, the middle class in the low income even though they are willing to do a little extra want fairness. Especially after what we've seen in the last couple of weeks analysts say that there might be a rebellion brewing in That they're going to say we won't take it anymore. We want the wealthy to really pay their share now Congress just enacted a little bit of a rise on the tax rate. But I wonder if that rise might be offset by those who have the know-how just finding more tax shelters. Anyway, so the real dollars might not be there. Mr. Peterson. (00:41:59) Well, it's a very good question and it's something that I think the American people have finally woke up to a little bit what happened during the 1980s my opponent voted for these tax plans that that cut taxes on the wealthiest one percent of the American people by $40,000 a year the same time. They raise taxes on people that are in the middle income. So they're paying $400 a year more and he's running these ads against me saying that I'm for raising taxes. You know what I'm just telling the people now that if you think your federal taxes are less than they were 13 years ago, then you should vote for congressman's dangling but the fact the matter is that what he did out there is he cut the tax rates. It was 70% on these wealthy people when he got in office now, it's 28% What he's not talking about is when they raise the Social Security taxes the self-employment taxes which hits Us in the 7th District more than a dozen other areas of the country because we have so many self-employed people whether it be Farmers small business owners. We pay you no more self-employment taxes than other people do what they've done is they raise that tax to 15.3% They raised the bottom rate from 14 to 15 percent. The effect of that is to raise taxes on the middle class people give a huge tax breaks to the wealthy people and it's just totally unfair to those of us in the 7th District because there aren't very many of us would make those kinds of dollars that we get in that high bracket and benefit from these tax (00:43:23) policies. Thank you. Mr. Scanlon. (00:43:26) Well, Zach taxes are an extremely complicated issue, but let me say that if you repeal the 1986 tax plan, you would raise the taxes for the average seven district taxpayer by about $800. So that person has benefited. You know, I've said it and I think the general public says well will pay more taxes, but we don't want spending to go up, you know, I've run into a time and again in the last number of years where people will come to me and say don't raise my taxes get rid of the deficit, but don't cut my program. There's nothing wrong and I've said in the past as well Kathy and said to many people many different groups. If I could have an ironclad guarantee that spending would be Frozen and that any increase in tax would go to cut the deficit and reduce the debt. I could find ways to support that tax that's never happened. Every time we raise taxes. We raise spending and this budget deficit package has over twenty two billion dollars in new entitlement programs. What a cut farm programs 13 a half billion and sets up a 7 percent increase in spending each year over the next five years. There's no attempt to hold the line on spending. There's more in spending increases over the next five years in this bill and tax increases and that's just wrong. If you hold the line on spending the public will be willing to pay for that. Deficit that debt. (00:44:47) Thank you. Mr. Peterson. Do you have a (00:44:48) rebuttal? Yes, I do, you know to say that the repealing the 86 tax plan is going to raise taxes is a bunch of hogwash. What happened in the 86 tax bill is Raise the bottom rate from 14% to 15% on those of us that are in those brackets. They eliminated a lot of deductions for people that itemized deductions and you all know about it because you've been going your tax preparer or filling out your tax returns. The other thing that they did is that they got rid of investment credit, they extended appreciation and they eliminated capital gains and I'll tell you who that impacted on especially as farmers and we have more Farmers per capita here in the 7th District than almost any place in the country that 86 tax reform bill was the worst tax bill that we could ever had for this kind of a district anybody that voted it for it was not representing this district and should have understand the understood the impact of it. I did taxes at this last year was really when we first saw the full impact of this and it took a lot of money out of this District that we wouldn't have had to pay if we wouldn't have had this tax bill we'd have been better off with the old system and what the system that we have here presently under that 86 tax reform acting and I know Because I do taxes every day and I see how this impacts ordinary folks. (00:46:07) Directed to mr. Staying on first. Arlen (00:46:12) a question on the on the budget is the problem with the savings and loans and the bailout as I understand it. That's an off budget item. Is that right? It's not covered in there in the reg regular federal budget. So we're not really getting a true picture of the deficit. I questioned the the the propriety of that kind of accounting. I'd like you both to comment on that. And (00:46:35) and also I'd like to I'd (00:46:36) like you to Ireland to explain the flexible freeze just exactly what it is and I'd like to ask our Colin what's wrong with a flexible freeze it saves everybody 40 billion dollars. (00:46:48) Just dangling first (00:46:49) very very quickly on the flexible freeze. It's a freeze that allows entitlement programs to be adjusted by 4% It's called as the flexible freeze. It's also called a four percent solution and you make that the framework as opposed to gramm-rudman and over the next five years. You will have you'll eliminate the deficit. It's simple. We're we have spending built in to this deficit reduction package of over 500 billion for entitlement programs and a hundred and some other billion hundred and seventy eighty billion for those programs that are discretionary meeting at our discretion on the SNL's that cost is going to be horrendous. But you know that I'm glad you brought it up because it gives me a chance when I didn't have before to rebut. First of all my opponents got an ad that I voted against penalizing SNL criminals. Now, I've never responded that ad because the voters of this District are smarter than that. What what object would I have in trying to let SNL criminals get off the hook none whatsoever. What we had was the Banking Committee in 89 the Billet. Mr. Peterson refers to came out with a bill that would have been alized those people who are in violation of SNL laws 1 million a day up to five million and used as a as the standard for getting convictions clear and convincing Judiciary came out and said double the federal cost. If it's 2 billion year penalty will be 4 billion and the preponderance of the evidence much easier to get a conviction. That was the amendment I voted for. I'm an aye vote for an amendment was actually tougher than what my opponent would have recommended. (00:48:23) Thank you. Mr. (00:48:24) Peterson. Well, that's not true. You know, there was 41 people that voted against that Amendment and 385 and voted for it and all of those 385 people thought that they were voting for a tougher situation in the Savings and Loan industry supported the side that my opponent took so I don't know how he comes up with that kind of an idea but this flexible freeze that you know, President Bush campaigned on that in 1988. And it's there's anybody out in Washington that anymore that thinks that that's a solution. It's the buzz word. That sounds good. But but they don't really get at the basic problem, which is defense spending in my opinion, you know, my opponent had an opportunity here just two three four weeks ago to vote. For a cut and Star Wars 1.2 billion dollars we could have certainly use that in the farm program rather than put more money into Star Wars, but he couldn't vote to cut that. He got all this rhetoric about how he wants to cut spending and how he's for a balanced budget. But the truth of the matter is that when he was elected to congress the the deficit was total public debt was seven hundred and seventy six billion dollars today. It's over three point trilled two trillion dollars. He was sitting out there being against a balanced budget and supported these programs that caused this huge deficit. I don't see how you can say that that's doing anything to provide any leadership on this budget situation. (00:49:50) What about the propriety you want to the American taxpayers being asked to ante up more money to balance the federal budget. We've got a major expenditure here (00:50:01) for the Savings and Loan industry that is off budget. In other words in reality. They've still got a bill even when the budget (00:50:08) looks down. That's right. Is that right? Great. This will be the last question. You'll each have a one minute (00:50:12) response. That's correct. We still have that bill to pay but you know, let me let me quickly say I don't understand what (00:50:19) figures he's using. (00:50:21) But if you tell me Colin that five million dollars total civil penalty on an SNL man is more severe than double the cost which can go up to (00:50:31) 4 billion. If the cost is 2 billion (00:50:33) the cost that man is 4 billion if 5 million is (00:50:36) tougher than 4 (00:50:38) billion it unkept penalty than boy. You got the different idea (00:50:44) clear and convincing. That's what the banking bill says clear and convincing and you ask any attorney. It's tougher to get a pennant tougher to get it prosecution in a (00:50:53) conviction under clear and convincing that it is under preponderance. And that's very simple just because only 41 members (00:51:01) voted with the Judiciary Committee doesn't make it the weakest one (00:51:04) if you're going to balance this numbers as to who's right by the number of Voters, you know, that doesn't that doesn't wash (00:51:11) Answer jobs question that I just say that the Congressional quarterly, which is nonpartisan said that the Amendments you voted against was tougher. So we'll leave it at that John on the on the issue of having these items off the budget. I think it just points out what's going on in Washington that these folks are more interested in getting re-elected and doing political kinds of things and they are taking care of the nation's business. I want to go out there and I want to put the savings alone on budget and we've got other Federal guarantees out there that I don't think we faced up to either in some of these other Federal guarantee programs were they haven't really went in and looked at them and I think seeing what kind of problems we have this Congress and the people that have been out there for the last 10 15 years have really put this country behind the eight ball and I'm concerned about the future. I think the voters are concerned about the future and they're they're looking for some leadership some change you see it out there, you know science and the field here. When I talk to people and and that's what we need. (00:52:16) Thank you. Thank you to the panelists for your questions are now ready for the closing statements and mr. Staying alone will begin. Well again, I want to thank (00:52:23) the League of Women Voters. I want to thank Concordia College for the use of facilities and the panel as well. There's as I said at the outset has been an ad campaign the work in Washington requiring me to be there, you know, I was criticized for not being home and I've been accused of hiding from the people. I guess if I had been here I would be self-serving running for my re-election as opposed to being concerned about the issues that face the public it's a case of your damned if you do and you're damned if you don't but it has been a strange election. I've always had a lot of faith in the people the 7th District. I have a lot of faith in those people to understand what the issues are. I've had the privilege and the pleasure and the extreme high honor of serving this district for 14 years. I can look any constituent in this District in (00:53:09) the eye and say aye (00:53:10) On the best I can for you. And any any voter who thinks that isn't good enough, I you know, they'll have to make their choice but it has been a great experience and I want to thank the voters and I'm confident that when the votes are in encountered that I'm going back to Washington for two more years. (00:53:24) Thank you. Mr. Peterson. (00:53:26) I too want to thank the league and all the folks that were involved in giving us this opportunity. You know, my opponent has been in Congress for 13 years and you know, we've heard him talk about his various positions, but the truth of the matter is what's happened since he's been in Congress is the opposite of what he says that he's for I think it just kind of points out the lack of leadership not only on his part but on a lot of members of Congress what we need in this country right now is we need about 200 new people elected to congress that are going to change the direction of this country. We need some people are going to do some different kinds of things that we're going to go out there and be willing to make the tough votes and not be so darn worried about getting re-elected. I hope that if I get the opportunity to serve the voters of the District that I can be that kind of person that I can go out there and stand up to the special interest and take on some of these hard issues and try to change the direction of this country. I am very worried about the future of this country in terms of what it means for my children your children, and I would appreciate very much the opportunity to serve you. (00:54:31) Thank you. This has been the 1990 Minnesota seventh congressional district debate. Thank you to our candidates Congressman, Ireland stainland and mr. Colin Peterson, and thank you to our panelists Susan or Randi Kaye CCM Kathy coil KX J. BT V Johnson for the Forum and Steve bergesen wday TV, the more Headway League of Women Voters wishes to thank the producer of this debate Dean Olsen and his work study crew at Concordia College in Moorhead and the Tactical and advisor and director Gary Larson from Moorhead Community Access television, please vote November 6th. Thank you for joining us.