The League of Women Voters of Kentucky presents Kentucky Senatorial Debate 90.

Your moderator is Wave three news anchor Hugh Finn.

Good evening and welcome to a debate between the candidates for United States Senate sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Kentucky and the League of Women Voters of Louisville and Jefferson County.

The Republican candidate is Senator Mitch McConnell.

The Democratic candidate is Dr. Harvey Sloane.

The election will be held on November 6th.

Here's our format for tonight.

The candidates will ask each other questions.

One candidate will have 30 seconds to ask a question.

The other candidate will have 2 minutes in which to respond.

The first candidate will then have 30 seconds for rebuttal.

At the end of the debate, each candidate will have two and a half minutes for a conclusion.

If either candidate has taken too much time for his answers, that time will be deducted from his conclusion.

My purpose as moderator is to direct the question answer rebuttal process.

And now the first question will be asked by Senator McConnell.

Senator.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate the chance to be here in this open debate with my opponent.

One of the most important issues in Kentucky is agriculture.

In terms of the number of farms.

We are number three out of the 50 states.

I'm a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

We just recently passed the 1990 farm bill.

I would like to ask Harvey to describe the philosophy and some of the principle provisions of the 1990 Farm Bill.

Thank you, Hugh.

And to the League of Women Voters.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

It's going to be an important opportunity for the voters of Kentucky.

Mitch.

The basic philosophy of the farm bill is to provide for the income of farmers and also to provide for the family farm.

This is something that I'm deeply concerned about.

The family farm, unfortunately, under your watch, Mitch.

7000 family farms have gone away.

And the family farm really is the backbone of this country.

It's the backbone of this state.

We're an agricultural state and the family farmer is the original small businessperson, the original conservationist.

And we've got to do everything we can to save the family farmer.

One thing we need to do more effectively in the farm bill addresses this to a certain extent, is to increase the exports of Kentucky, produce.

Right now, in Japan, Kentucky produce cannot be sold.

We can't get into that market.

Kentucky beef costs will be priced at about $10 a pound.

And that's not right when we've got so much coming from Japan, so many imports, so many cars.

We need to be able to penetrate these markets.

We have the opportunity of the Eastern Europe opening up.

The whole European Common Market is coming online.

In 1992, the superior product that we produce here should be penetrated into Europe and into the Soviet Union.

So this is what I'm going to focus on.

The 1990 farm bill is a take off from the 85 farm bill, and that was designed by Democrat House.

And it was basically a very good bill that initiated a return.

And and but we did lose the family farm, 7000.

We lost in the last five years.

Senator McConnell, your rebuttal?

Unfortunately, Harvey didn't answer the question.

Obviously, they didn't teach agriculture at Yale.

The 1990 farm bill has two very significant departures from the past.

One is flexibility.

Farmers are able to say divert 25% of their corn based into soybeans or vice versa without penalty in terms of losing the base.

There's also a marketing loan for soybeans, which will help us with our agriculture exports.

And with regard to Japan, we have many grievances against Japan, but buying our agricultural products is not one of them.

They buy a lot of American agricultural products.

And Dr. Sloan, your first question for Senator McConnell.

Mitch, you've consistently voted against seniors.

I saw where you said senior and older Americans have it pretty well in this country.

Now, I tell you, I've been campaigning across this state and I just don't find that they do have it that well.

Now, you voted against Medicare and Social Security 13 times.

Why do you continually vote against seniors?

Harvard, 97 senators at one time or another have voted to modify or delay or in some instances freeze certain benefits.

We have this problem called a deficit.

In fact, a programs for senior citizens have increased dramatically.

The Social Security system is in excellent shape, but we do, of course, have the deficit.

Harvey has been criticizing me for a variety of different votes that I've cast to try to restrain federal spending.

And what we've done is add them all up and the total cost is $250 billion.

Or to put it another way, a tax bill of 40 $200 for the working men and women of Kentucky.

Now, what I think Harvey ought to do is maybe get out of the studio and walk across the street and knock on the door and ask one of these working families who live in this neighborhood whether they would like a tax increase of 40 $200 this year.

But knock on the door and say, I'm Harvey Sloan, I'm running for the Senate and I'd like to raise your taxes.

40 $200.

And then, Harvey, I'd like for you two to come back over here to the studio and sit down and tell us how they felt about it, Assuming you could use that language on television.

So I plead guilty to having voted to restrain some federal spending.

When you get to Washington, you have tough decisions to make.

But the senior citizens of Kentucky and of America have done extraordinarily well.

Social Security is in good shape and those who prey on the elderly and try to scare them into thinking that somehow their benefits are going to be tampered with, are doing the elderly of this country a disservice.

My mother and dad are both Social Security recipients, and I want you to know I wouldn't do anything ever to hurt my mother and dad.

Dr. Saloni, rebuttal.

Well, Mitch, it's interesting that Wendell Ford did not join on your votes.

It's interesting that the National Council of Senior Citizens, which rates all incumbents, has you voting 85% against seniors.

You've done it again and again and again.

I'll go out and I'll talk to a senior.

You want to have less coverage by Medicare?

That's what you're doing.

You're going to knock off $5.5 billion this year when President Bush comes in and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare is supporting me, not you.

They know you're the enemy, Mitch.

Senator McConnell, you have the question now.

Yes.

Harvey, of course, the National Council of Senior Citizens is an arm of the Democratic National Committee.

But let's shift to another subject, and that is the Middle East.

What's on the front page?

The Council for a Livable World, one of these left wing East Coast organizations, has endorsed my opponent.

They don't want any aircraft carriers and they want to close down a whole lot of bases like Fort Knox and Fort Campbell.

What I'd like to ask Harvey is how would we support our troops in the Middle East without those aircraft carriers that the Council for a Livable World wants to get rid of?

Mitch, That's absolutely incorrect.

Again, let me tell you one thing.

I'm going to provide full support to our men and women over in Saudi Arabia.

We don't have adequate equipment today.

We need to see C-17 transport.

We need the V 22 Osprey.

They need to be transported more effectively than they are today.

We have to develop a defense policy that's much more in line with regional conflicts that I think we're seeing more and more.

Whether it has to do with Panama, whether it has to do with the Middle East.

This is a responsibility that the United States has and we welcome it.

And I'm going to support it.

Now, the question is, do we need the stealth bomber in to the extent that it was originally initiated?

Do we need the Star Wars?

To the extent that Ronald Reagan initiated that?

Do we need the mix on rail To the extent that the initial proposal was?

I don't think we do.

But in terms of regional conflicts, in terms of supporting our men and women, in terms of our bases here, I've certainly never come out for any cancellation of a base here.

And I'm going to fight for the bases in Kentucky.

And you bet I am.

But Mitch McConnell, you're just wrong in terms of not having me support the Middle East endeavor.

I think the president has shown a significant initiative and we're going to back him to the hilt.

Rebuttal from Senator McConnell.

Well, the fact of the matter is the Council for a Livable World is a left wing East Coast organization that has embraced my opponent.

And it is against aircraft carriers, which are the backbone of what we are doing in the Middle East that provide the air power which protects our troops who are sweating in the desert in Saudi Arabia.

They're also in favor of widespread base closings.

And we have important military bases in Kentucky like Fort Knox and Fort Campbell that would be jeopardized by the views of that organization, which has embraced my opponent.

Dr. Sloan, your chance to ask a question.

I'm a doctor and I came to Kentucky as part of President Kennedy's health program in eastern Kentucky.

And I is and I have worked in the field of health care.

I testified in 1970 before the Ways and Means Committee in the U.S. Congress.

And Mitch, you knew I was going to be your opponent and you had done nothing in the field of health care for five and a half years.

And you introduced a bill that's a political bill that you got your consultant to do an ad, a commercial for you that you got to have on the air.

Why should the people of Kentucky think you're going to do anything about health care?

You know, Harvey, it's funny that you started using that title doctor again.

You know, Harvey, I went to medical school in the early sixties, but he and lanced a boil since then.

It's a matter of fact, he's been in politics longer than I am.

Harvey, running as a doctor would be about as foolish as me running as a lawyer, since I haven't practiced law in 13 or 14 years either.

So that doesn't uniquely qualified my opponent to do anything about the nation's health care problems.

The fact of the matter is that Harvey, his health care plan doesn't cover employers who work for companies that employ 100 or fewer people.

That's roughly 55% of the workforce that are simply not covered by the plan.

The plan that I recommended would provide tax credits of up to 1400 dollars a year right off of your tax return, just like cash or for the very poor, a refundable tax credit, which is a certificate that is cash for the purpose of going out and purchasing health insurance.

Now, the health insurance companies are going to have to do their part to provide affordable health care in addition to that.

My plan would also require the restoration of catastrophic coverage and also the reinstatement or the the beginning of the care of long term care.

All of these are very, very important principles.

Now, the Kentucky Hospital Association, which has never endorsed anybody in a political race before, has taken a look at Harvey and they've taken a look at me and the Kentucky Hospital Association, which represents 95% of the hospital beds in Kentucky, almost all of which are not for profit hospitals.

I've said that Senator McConnell is doing a good job in the health care field and ought to be reelected for another term.

Rebuttal from Dr. Sloan.

Well, Mitch, they didn't endorse your plan.

No one has endorsed your plan.

You don't have one senator in the U.S. Senate co-sponsoring it with you.

Basically, it's a plan by the insurance companies.

They contributed to your election.

So you're going to present their plan.

It's not going to provide coverage for the working people of Kentucky.

And it is basically a political gimmick.

Mitch, don't fool us about it.

Senator McConnell, your next question about this loan.

Of course, Harvey's plan is written by the plaintiffs lawyers who support him.

But I'd like to shift to Panama.

Harvey Sloan is one of the few people in America who said on May the second of this year, a few people have said at any time he happened to have said on May the second of this year that he would not have invaded Panama, such as President Bush ordered us to do, which took out Noriega.

And I'd like for Harvey to explain why he opposed the president's decision to liberate Panama from Manuel Noriega.

Wrong message.

I said I would not have a policy, as we've seen in the Panama for Latin America.

I think each country is very different.

Each is very significant.

And I think if we look at the basic goal and this is a goal that I think this country can espouse so well because of our heritage and because where we've come from, the basic goal is democracy.

Any time we can promote democracy and elections, that is to the benefit of this hemisphere and all countries of the world and all peoples of the world.

And that's the policy that I'm going to pursue.

We have to be very careful when we intervene into other people's affairs.

And that has to be part of the deliberation.

But any time we can promote elections, democracy and freedom of choice of people to choose their government, then we're talking about a life that this country has had that I believe in and that all countries that had.

Rebuttal from Senator McConnell.

Yes, obviously, Harvey didn't understand the facts of the Panama situation very well.

An election had occurred in Panama and the duly elected president and vice president were simply shunted aside by Noriega, who canceled the results of the election and took over himself.

And so we went into Panama, and it was widely applauded by almost everybody in the Congress except the most extreme liberals to restore the duly elected government of Panama.

And it was widely applauded by Panamanians and widely applauded by Americans.

Now, Dr. Sloan's question for the senator.

Just exactly why I supported that effort.

It supports democracy continually.

You have voted against education for our kids.

You voted in 1985 and 1996 and 1987.

And your colleague Wendell Ford, is on the other side, as usual, because you're not supporting working families nor their children, nor seniors.

Why do you continually vote against education for our kids?

Well, you know, Harvey, you keep bringing up Wendell Ford's name.

I remember what Lloyd Bentsen said in the debate for vice president in 1988.

And I let me be.

Take the liberty to paraphrase R.B., I know Wendell Ford.

I work with Wendell Ford.

And you no Wendell Ford.

But with regard to education, let me just say this educational funding coming to Kentucky has gone up 40%.

I have voted over the five and a half years to approve $123 billion of spending at the federal level for education.

I've been a supporter of education.

An amendment of mine was passed on the education bill in the Senate this year, which would provide scholarship money by congressional district around the country to outstanding principals and teachers and students.

I have another bill which I've introduced which also provides the opportunity to try to deal with a teacher shortage in Appalachia.

The President has taken a leadership position in education.

We're all strong supporters of education.

So I think to sit here and argue that because I may have cast a few votes to do something about the federal deficit is further evidence that the loan surtax that I referred to earlier is his only answer.

You know, back in the sixties, they wanted to just spend all of our money and this fellow across the street that I recommended, Harvey, go over and ask if you wanted this 40 $200 tax bill, I would say is probably going to reply that, you know, Harvey, they just raised our taxes, $1.3 billion here in Kentucky this year.

And I think it's time that we showed a little bit of restraint.

I think that's what the working men and women of Kentucky would like, a little bit of government restraint.

But from Dr. Sloan.

Well, Mitch, your priorities certainly aren't with the working men and women because you've voted against them time and time again, $176 million less in Kentucky because of your votes.

Again, Wendell Ford did not join you.

He voted for the kids of our commonwealth.

I'm proud to have the endorsement of the teachers of Kentucky.

They know that I'm going to be there for public education.

The children's Defense Fund.

Right.

Mitch McConnell is one of the worst senators on children's issues.

That's because he votes against education continually.

Question from Senator McConnell.

I'm glad Harvey brought up the subject of children.

Children.

I don't think anybody has a stronger record anywhere in America than I do when it comes to protecting our children.

Sure, The national education Association supports Harvey.

They support every Democrat who works for any of it, runs for any office anywhere in America.

But with regard to children, Harvey, I'd like for you to explain to us why you dismantled the Exploited Missing child unit while you were Jefferson County Judge that I set up in 1979, which put together social workers and police officers to go after child molesters.

That's we carried that on in a different way.

The county government and its protection services for children is a very important component of the operations of county government.

And it was interesting that although Mr. McCollum, this one issue of missing children has grabbed that particular issue and run with it continually and evidently done a lot of political activity, when you have a commercial on that.

Also image.

But the Children's Defense Fund, in writing your overall record in terms of children and how you've dealt with issues of education, children in their protection, how you've their support that they need to gain education and and develop into adults is just something that you've not been helpful with and they rate you, unfortunately, about half what they write.

Wendell Ford, He's out there for Kentucky children again.

And Mitch, you're not.

Why can't you be for Kentucky children?

Rebuttal from Senator McConnell.

I voted with Wendell Ford two thirds of the time, but I'd like to go back to the commercial that Harvey referred to.

The person in that commercial is John Walsh, whose son Adam was abducted and brutally murdered in 1981.

John makes the point that I was involved in the field of exploited missing children even before he was.

He also makes the point that that my task force wrote the Kentucky Law, which was enacted in 1984 and that I just recently got enacted legislation in the Senate to help find missing children faster.

So, Harvey, I don't think it's a good idea to attack my credentials on children's issues.

QUESTION from Dr. Sloan.

Mitt, you talked about taxes.

You have voted for 13 of the 14 tax initiatives by the Reagan administration.

Uh, one was an excise tax on tobacco and one on coal.

Now you're running around saying that you're not going to have any new taxes or more taxes, even though Mr. Bush has now unsealed his lips and said there are going to be taxes.

How can the people of Kentucky believe that you're not going to go with your president in terms of new taxes and also your record of increasing taxes?

Talk about an absurd observation.

If there's anybody who doesn't have a record of increasing taxes, it's Mitch McConnell.

In 1986, we passed the Tax Reform Act, and probably some of the votes that Harvey is referring to were efforts to to increase taxes on wealthy people in order to to lower the rates for everybody else.

There's anybody who's been a hard nosed anti-tax or it is I and there are about 25 of us in the Senate who are not willing to support a deficit reduction agreement this year if it includes new taxes in it.

I think that the reason we have this problem is why in Washington is not because the federal government taxes too little, but because it spends too much.

So I'd like to ask Harvey to respond on rebuttal to this year's deficit problem.

The budget summiteers are meeting now this week before we go back in session next Monday.

Presumably, they're going to come up with a deficit reduction package.

And I'd like to ask Harvey in his rebuttal to tell us just which taxes he would raise or which programs he would cut in order to hit this year's Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction target.

Mitch, you have a history of taxes and increased taxes, 13 of them in the Senate.

As Marin County judge, I eliminated two taxes, never increased taxes.

That 1986 tax reform bill that you talk about actually reduce the taxes for the wealthy.

And that's what has happened in the eighties.

We've seen the high income go down in their tax obligations.

The working people go up and they are getting squeezed again and again and again.

I just want to know what taxes you're going to raise much.

Question from Senator.

McConnell.

I'd like to ask the question again.

As we speak tonight, the budget summiteers are back in Washington trying to decide how to hit this year's Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction target.

Now, you just heard Harvey not answer the question, so I'd like to pose it again.

Harvey, when you're going to hit the deficit reduction target this year, you're either going to have to raise taxes or cut spending.

Specifically, what taxes would you raise or what programs would you cut?

Well, Mitch, I'll tell you, taxes we won't raise.

And those are taxes on the hard working families of Kentucky.

You helped raise those taxes in the eighties.

You help reduce the obligations of your fat cat supporters, your oil companies that you the the Phillips Oil Company.

You got a tax break for.

You've done well with your fat cat contributors.

I'm not going to see that the working people of Kentucky get any more tax obligations than they have today.

And that's a commitment.

You make that commitment.

Mitch.

I'm glad Harvey brought up the oil companies.

I haven't done any favors for the oil companies.

He's the one that owns almost $100,000 in Exxon stock back in 1989.

You recall the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the worst environmental disaster in terms of water quality we've experienced in this country.

Exxon tried to send me a political contribution after that.

I sent it back.

I've taken no contributions from Exxon.

I wonder, Harvey, why you haven't sold your Exxon stock in protest to one of the nation's principal polluters.

Question from Dr. Sloan.

Well, we can get into that much about oil because you have it all over you, $150,000 worth of contributions from the oil companies, the executives and moguls of the oil industry.

And you voted with them to you took off that windfall profits tax.

You remember that?

Mitch, you eliminated I came out two days ago.

We're going to put it back in when I get on.

We're going to tax the oil companies because they're ripping off the people.

Now, I own a little oil stock.

But let me tell you, they own you lock, stock and barrel.

Answer from Senator McConnell.

Well, the oil companies don't own me anymore than they own Wendell Ford.

They contributed to him because he's on the Energy Committee.

When he ran for reelection in 1986.

And by the way, one of the biggest recipients of oil company contributions is Senator Lloyd Bentsen, who's coming in to do a fundraiser for Harvey.

So maybe Harvey ought to ask those questions of Wendell Ford and Lloyd Bentsen.

The fact of the matter is that the oil companies have been in the last month taking advantage of the situation in the Middle East.

Nobody is more irritated about that than I am.

They ought to be investigated.

And if the investigation doesn't solve the problem because there is no shortage, the reason there's no shortage is because when you take Iraq and Kuwait oil production away and nobody's buying their oil right now, there's a 4 million barrel a day shortfall.

The Saudis are going to raise their production 2 million barrels a day.

The rest of OPEC countries are going to raise the additional 2 million barrels a day.

So they're in a shortage when it shortage today and it's going to be any shortage tomorrow.

And so I want you to know that I'm certainly not interested in defending the oil companies anymore, any more than Wendell Ford is a loy Bentsen is.

And we're going to go after them over this price gouging that's been going on for the last month.

Rebuttal from Dr. Sloan.

The best way you could go after Mitch is have a windfall profits tax reenacted.

You voted to take it off in 1988.

It's interesting, as you gained membership on the Energy Committee, your contributions from the oil companies went up from $20000 to $147000 in one year and a half.

Boy, they really have you in their pocket, Mitch.

Now, a question from Senator McConnell.

Well, the unions have given Harvey $150,000.

So I guess they have him in their pocket.

Let's shift to another subject while we're on energy.

I read with interest Harvey's energy policy, which was announced a couple of weeks ago.

We hadn't heard much out of him on energy prior to two weeks ago, and it appeared as if it might have some relation to the Fuel Use Act.

So, Harvey, I'd like for you to tell us how your energy policy relates to the Fuel Use Act and what your views are on that important legislation.

Well, I'll tell you what we're going to do on energy.

We're going to become a lot less oil dependent.

Mitch.

You've been on the Energy Committee and you have done nothing to increase our independence from oil.

And that's one of the problems we have in the Middle East.

One of the principal problems today, we have such great resources in Kentucky.

Coal is a resource of some 300 years.

In 1979, Wendell Ford and the Democratic administration worked for synthetic fuel programs to use Kentucky coal, converted to oil and gas through liquefaction and gasification that was wiped out by the Republicans.

Consequently, our dependance on oil has actually gone up since we had the crises in 1973, 74 and 79.

Mitch McConnell sits on the Energy Committee.

He has done nothing to try to promote Kentucky products products of coal, but also products of grain and corn so we can have gas, a hole in ethanol to replace some of our needs for transportation fuel.

But I think to be from Kentucky, be on the energy Committee, not to join Wendell Ford in the opportunity of having energy independence in this country.

And independence particularly from oil, which we don't have as great a reserve of as other countries in this world, is really outrageous.

I am going to be in the Senate and work for a national energy policy that has coal as its cornerstone.

And rebuttal from Senator McConnell.

You'll notice that he didn't ask to answer the question.

I don't think he knows what the Fuel Use Act was.

In fact, it was repealed in 1987 against the objections of Wendell Ford and myself.

The Fuel Use Act required all major utilities to use coal, and it was a big mistake to repeal the Fuel Use Act.

We referred to the windfall profits tax.

The reason the Congress voted to repeal the windfall profits tax is there were no windfall profits to tax.

It was producing no revenue for the government.

Question from Dr. Sloan.

Mitch, you voted against working families again and again and again.

Now you say that's because you're concerned about the budget.

However, why wouldn't you support a minimum wage for a working person?

Minimum wage is really not adequate as it is in terms of gainful employment.

Why won't you?

And didn't you support notification of plant closings 60 days in advance?

Why don't you support basic support systems like childcare for working women?

Answer I do support childcare.

I support a childcare tax credit, which would mean something to all children, not just a small portion of children.

As the ABC bill would, which which Harvey supports.

I did support final passage of the minimum wage bill.

And what was the other part of your question, Harvey?

Oh, the 60 day plant closed.

Let me tell you how I feel about 60 day plant notice of closing.

I think it's not enough.

I think companies ought to provide more than 60 days notice if they possibly can.

Back when Harvey initially criticized me for not voting for a federal mandate that companies require provides 60 day notice, he cited International Harvester here in Louisville.

You might be interested to know that International Harvester provided six months notice and that virtually all companies in America now provide more than 60 day notice if they're going to go out of business.

But there were other aspects to that bill which might have been useful, and that was the question of a major force reduction as well.

One of my problems with Harvey over the years, with all due respect, is that he's a bit of a hypocrite.

I mean, he had an opportunity here in Jefferson County while he was Jefferson County judge to have a 60 day a notice of layoff provision for Jefferson County employees.

But that wasn't done.

And I'll give you an example of how that hurt as a result of his mismanagement of Jefferson County government here over the last four years.

The new county judge, Dave Armstrong, was left with a fiscal disaster.

He had to not only raise taxes with an insurance premium tax another Sloan surtax, but he also had to lay off 103 employees as a direct result of Harvey's mismanagement of Jefferson County government.

And I can guarantee you those 103 employees would love to have had 60 days notice.

Rebuttal from Dr. Sloan.

Mitch, It's just plain hypocritical to say that you don't support the 60 day notice because it's not enough.

You certainly have initiated any legislation for six months notification on closing the plant.

And I think for you to say that you didn't support it because it wasn't long enough is just an outrage.

Question from Senator McGee.

That's not what I was saying.

I didn't favor the federal mandate.

But let's go back to energy for a minute.

Another left wing East Coast group that has endorsed Harvey enthusiastically, and he's proud of it because he brought them down to Kentucky and they had press conferences around the state.

Is the League of Conservation Voters now, this left wing Washington based group is against coal, it's against nuclear, and it's against additional oil exploration.

So I think we ought to give Harvey an opportunity tonight to explain why he's so proud of the endorsement of the League of Conservation Voters.

Wrong again, Mitch, which they wouldn't endorse me if they were against coal because I'm pro coal.

And I think, as I've said, the ace in the hole for us in the future is to use coal and use it in a way that we're going to be able to convert fuel to oil and gas.

And it's becoming economical.

It's about $35 a barrel now for the conversion.

And because of the crisis in the Middle East, oil is coming up to $30 a barrel or was at least last week.

I'm proud to have the endorsement of conservation groups.

I believe in the environment.

I think if there is one thing that we can leave for our children, it is an environment that is better than than ours.

Kentucky is a beautiful state.

Kentucky has more navigable rivers than any other state except Alaska.

I want to keep that environment for our children.

I like to fish and I like to hunt.

I want to have that opportunity and for my kids to have that opportunity.

I'm concerned about the fact that we can't eat the fish out of the Ohio River because they're contaminated.

Has he done anything about that?

No.

We had a thousand violations last year.

And Mitch McConnell votes to reduce the support for EPA.

We can't have that kind of lackluster, backward leadership for our environment.

We've got to have decent drinking water for the people of Kentucky.

20% of the people in Kentucky are faced with unsafe drinking water.

That should be corrected.

We can work to see that that is not a problem.

We have to have the air and water we breathe and also to preserve the land for the future.

That is so wonderful.

And that's that's the beauty of Kentucky.

It's a marvelous state, not only in resources, but in beauty.

Rebuttal from Senator McConnell.

I'm having a hard time getting Harvey to respond to my questions.

The fact of the matter is the League of Conservation Voters is anti-coal, anti-nuclear.

And the reason that's important is that we have a uranium enrichment plant in Paducah.

It produces a product that is used not only for defense purposes, but also for domestic nuclear power production.

Harvey himself has said that he's opposed to nuclear power.

Of course, that would put the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant out of business.

So, Harvey, you can't represent the League of Conservation Voters and represent Kentucky.

They're incompatible.

Question from Dr. Sloan.

I'm for safe nuclear power.

Let's talk a little bit about the SNL scandal.

It really is the worst financial scandal in the history of this country.

You got large contributions from SNL as you criticize me because of a person who was involved with a loan from SNL.

He's not on SNL, but you took contributions.

But that's not the problem.

You voted for the bailout.

You gave up too easy.

And the problem is we're paying for SNL disasters in Texas, in California and Oklahoma.

Arizona.

We have good SNL is in this state and they shouldn't be penalized.

Why did you have this bailout?

I'm glad Harvey raised this subject.

It's a very important and timely subject.

The idea to deregulate the channels was very wrong headed.

It originated with Jimmy Carter, but it passed under Ronald Reagan.

Clearly, this is a situation that was a bipartisan disaster.

It, of course, passed before I got to Congress.

By the time I got there in 1985, it was clear, based upon the advice we were getting from the leaders of the Banking Committee, that the decision to deregulate on the one hand and increase the amount of insurance behind deposits on the other was obviously not working and some legislation needed to be passed.

Well, you know what happened then?

I hope everybody remembers Speaker Jim Wright and Minority Majority Whip Tony Coelho.

They were two House Democrats.

They literally bottled up the bailout legislation for years, for years.

So that by the time the bailout finally passed and bear in mind who's being bailed out here, they're the little people, the working men and women across America who have their deposits in the essentials.

Those are the people who are being made whole.

By the time that happened, the bill had mounted.

Now, Harvey had a real SNL scandal right here in Jefferson County.

The Huntington Development, funded by a high flier named Jeff Leggo from Texas, who came in here and gave enormous contributions to Harvey.

He was a high flying guy that left everybody a being owed money all around the community.

He also has a current debt that still hasn't been paid to Jefferson County government, where Harvey was the chief executive officer.

This was an SNL finance deal.

Now, that was a direct involvement in, a massive foul up that's going to cost a lot of money.

Any accusation that Mitch McConnell had something to do with the SNL fiasco is certainly guilt by association.

Harvey Sloan's involvement with the Lego Huntington deal here in Jefferson County is guilt by direct involvement.

Rebuttal from Dr. Sloan.

Mad Shots, Bull Legos, No SNL.

You have presided and your party has been on the watch.

They were on the watch.

$5,000 per Kentucky taxpayer.

You and I are going to be paying that.

Why don't we have a regional plan that does not penalize Kentucky taxpayers?

Let's get Texas and Oklahoma to pay their fair share.

It can be done if we have leadership.

I'm going to give that leadership.

Gentlemen, the clock has been kind to us.

We've completed seven complete exchanges, which is what you agreed to.

But we have enough time for one more complete exchange.

A question from each of you for the other.

And we will begin with Senator McConnell.

Your question for Dr. Sloan.

Over Harvey's long public career, going back to the early seventies, there's a pattern.

And the pattern is to appoint boards and commissions every time there's a crisis.

We've added them up.

They've been at least 70 boards or commissions or task forces, ad hoc task forces that Harvey Sloan appointed as mayor of Louisville for eight years and as county judge.

Most of them never reported.

There was a jail commission, never built a jail housing commission, never built a house, and an efficiency task force that cost $75,000.

Harvey, why don't you explain to us your management style?

Mitch My management style is to have services that are delivered for working Kentuckians.

I'm proud that as mayor, that we were able to revive talk and we were able to start the first emergency medical service.

We were able to keep neighborhoods safe, good policing.

As county judge, I saw 65,000 new jobs come into this community.

We've got a great community and we have a great opportunity in the future.

I want to provide that leadership in the Senate, and it's leadership for working people.

Mitch That's the heart and the soul of what my administrations have been about.

People, middle income people that need to have a little bit of support from government, whether it's a police service or whether it's opportunity for economic development.

And we've been able to provide that leadership up, and I'm very proud of it.

Rebuttal from Senator McConnell.

Once again, as you've noticed, Harvey didn't answer the question.

I think to kind of sum up the management style in 1974 and August when the tornado hit here in Louisville, Harvey was up at is the state and Canada.

And the first thing he did when he flew back after the tornado was to appoint a task force to determine how to clean up after the tornado.

Now, I can tell you anybody that has to appoint a task force to determine how to clean up after a tornado isn't going to make it in the U.S. Senate.

Question from Dr. Sloan.

Mitch, it's been interesting to see the volume of your contributions, but also where they come from.

And you've always voted with the rich special interests.

And I think in three occasions we can see that.

And you might want to talk about it a little bit.

First of all, the small bailout, they were there when you needed them.

They contributed.

You bailed them out.

The insurance companies have been very nice to you.

Tens of thousands of dollars, Mitch.

You've allowed them to write your health bill.

The oil companies have contributed $150,000.

You voted to repeal that windfall profits tax.

QUESTION Explain your your association with these special interests, these rich special interests.

Let's let's just wait a minute here.

Now, Harvey, what we're talking about here is is what you call class warfare.

Let's make sure we understand who's who here.

I'm a part of the working men and women of Kentucky.

I went to public schools.

I went to college here in Kentucky.

I went to law school here in Kentucky.

You're the guy that went to the private schools, went to Yale.

I'm the guy that just had to put a second mortgage on his house to help pay for his kids college education.

You're the guy that inherited a million bucks.

Now, I know you know that they had squash at Yale.

I thought squash was something we ate.

So you need to back off of this.

This class warfare stuff, because I'm the fellow representing the working men and women of Kentucky.

And I want you to know that that's the way I cast my vote.

The reason I have a lot of support in this race is because people believe in what I'm doing for Kentucky.

Harvey's frustrated here because he's had a difficult time getting this campaign together.

He's been running for five years.

There's no excuse for him to have difficulty at this point.

This has been a thoroughly premeditated campaign that's been going on for a long time.

And what you see here and these complaints about my ability to gain support from a whole lot of people, you know, big contributions can't be made anymore.

They come under the limits from a whole lot of people.

His complaint is that Mitch McConnell has a lot of support.

I plead guilty supporters and all 120 counties, 75% of my financial support has come from Kentuckians in small donations.

So I think here what you got is a case of sour grapes.

And I think it is particularly inappropriate for Harvey Sloan, who went to private schools and inherited a lot of money to act like I'm the candidate of the rich people.

We borrow from doctors totally.

The question is, whose side are you on, Mitch?

You're not on the side of public education.

You're not on the side of consumers.

You're on the insurance companies side.

You're on the oil companies side.

And you're on the SNL mogul's side.

And you've shown that again and again and again.

You vote that way.

You take their contributions.

They're your boy and you're voting for them all the way.

Mitch.

We have time for one more complete round and you will have a full 2 minutes for your answers.

And we'll begin with Senator McConnell's question.

Thank you.

You know, over Harvey's long public career, going back to the early seventies, there's a pattern.

I think it may have formed in the sixties.

A lot of people are in those days where against the police and Harvey, over his two terms as mayor of Louisville and term as county judge of Jefferson County, drastically reduced police strength, leading me to believe that he's pretty soft on law enforcement.

And I think you ought to explain to us tonight why he consistently demonstrated a feeling that we ought to reduce the number of police officers.

I was proud that crime in our community didn't increase.

We were able to see that other techniques were used, a lot of citizen participation, neighborhood watch and on our watch.

Mitch, it's been a very good time for Louisville and Jefferson County.

Now, drugs are a tremendous problem nationwide.

They're a tremendous problem in this community, and they're a tremendous problem in Kentucky.

I think we need to have a drug policy that's sound and that is going to include both.

Prevention is going to include enforcement and putting the pushers behind this in the slammer and also prevention.

And, Mitch, I was very interested in your, uh, drug policy, which basically was to shut down private planes that were suspected of having drugs on board.

Well, now the secretary of defense and the secretary of transportation didn't think that was a very good idea.

And you're your colleague in Lexington in the sixth District.

Congressman Hopkins actually thought that was goofy.

Now, tell us, Mitch, how are you going to have decent drug program when you want to do something like that?

Rebuttal?

Well, what Congressman Hopkins said was that he didn't agree with my idea to shoot down drug planes.

By the way, it would have only shot down those that were flying below 3000 feet over water, kicking bundles out the back.

And I'm not aware that there any innocent pilots doing that.

But Harvey didn't quote the second part of Congressman Hopkins observation.

He said that while he might have disagreed with me on the shoot down amendment, he thought that Harvey Sloan's only idea about doing something about drugs was to write prescriptions for himself.

Question from Dr. Sloan.

I was very interested in medicine.

Your, uh, heavy involvement in campaign finance reform.

I use that term a little loosely because your reform really isn't something that the majority of the people who are in that issue think it's a reform.

And the problem that I think we've seen is that you're not going to allow any cap on expenditures.

You're going to just push this whole system through the roof so it becomes such that it's not going to be attractive for.

QUESTION Please.

Any any person to be involved in it from the standpoint of raising money, why have you insisted that you don't want to have any meaningful reform?

Really glad you raised that subject, Harvey.

I was chosen the floor leader for, the Republican side on the question of campaign finance reform, one of the major issues confronting our country in this particular day and age, it is quite unusual for a freshman senator to be chosen to be the floor manager of a bill.

It's typically done by senior members of committees and of course, no freshman members of the Senate or senior members of any committee.

Now, this is an area in which I've spent a good deal of time studying and what the Liberals in the Sixties want to do.

And the message has been the same over the years is they wanted to put a cap on how many people could participate in a campaign.

Now, bear in mind already how much an individual can give is rather severely limited.

So an individual can't give a huge amount of money to a candidate anymore, but they want to put a limit on how many individuals can participate and aha, here is the point.

They want to start a new federal entitlement program to use your money, tax money to pay for our campaigns.

And the position that Harvey supports is to start a new federal entitlement program for political candidates.

And I'll bet you that fellow across the street that I wanted Harvey to go over there and ask how he would feel about paying 4200 more dollars for all the programs that Harvey wouldn't have cut.

I'd love to hear what that guy said when old Harvey went over there and said, Now I've got this idea I want to try out on you.

We're going to take your tax dollars and we're going to give them to political candidates to pay for their political races.

Well, I can tell you that would be the last item on anybody's priority list.

We've got serious problems in this country, including a federal deficit of some consequence.

And the very last thing that we ought to be doing is starting an entitlement program to spend tax dollars, your tax dollars on our campaigns.

Harvey, that's a terrible idea.

Rebuttal from Dr. Sloan.

Mitch, the presidential election is through the same kind of mechanism.

Every major newspaper in the country has fought you on this.

In one of your bills, you were going to allow $340,000 by an individual to be contributed to federal elections.

Are they Obviously, that's going to buy a lot of positions as ambassadors.

And I think you've really done a disservice in fighting any meaningful campaign finance reform.

You say you're against PACs, but yet you're the PAC man.

You collected now a million, $100,000 in PACs.

Now, each candidate will have two and a half minutes for a concluding statement.

And we'll begin with Dr. Sloan.

I really appreciate the opportunity to be in this debate.

I'm going to ask my opponent if he would accept a challenge to have two more debates in October.

The recess for the Senate gets out on October 5th, and certainly as he campaigns for taxpayers by taxpayers money and time, he should want to give 2 hours to the public to exchange views.

My career, I'm happy to be able to say that I've been able to pursue public service.

I had the opportunity of coming to eastern Kentucky in 1964 to be part of President Kennedy's health program.

I was in Vietnam as a volunteer physician, and I came to Louisville to set up a neighborhood health center.

And then I served as Marion County judge and during that time, I've had an opportunity to work with working families in this community and statewide.

And that's what this election's all about.

Whose side are you on?

Are you on the side of the special rich interests, or are you going to vote against seniors time and time again?

Or Are you going to vote against Social Security and Medicare, the basic life support systems for our senior citizens?

Or are you going to work for a meaningful national health program or are you going to be able to help provide working families through their employment meaningful coverage for health care?

Are we going to be able to provide long term care for seniors who are in fear and trembling about how to pay for that long term care?

Are we going to be able to address some of the important family issues that working families are fighting with day in and day out, whether it's child care or whether it has to do with education for our children?

I want to see our children really get education in the fields of math and science so that they can be able to compete in this international global economy in this day of high technology.

Kentucky children can be the best and they will be the best.

And I want to see that our environment is enhanced and we keep what we have in terms of the opportunities for our children.

So that is the story about this election.

Whose side is the candidate's on?

Are they on the side of the rich special interests or are they on the side of the hard working families of Kentucky?

I'm on that side, and I need the hardworking families to join me on November 6th.

Thank you, Senator McConnell.

I've enjoyed this debate tonight a great deal, and I'm looking forward to the second one on September 30th.

Two debates will be twice as many as Senator Huddleston gave me in 1984 and two more than Harvey gave John Brock in the spring.

So we'll have two good debates, and I hope that it will help everybody in the process of making a decision in this election.

You've heard the charges and countercharges tonight, and if you're a little bit confused, don't feel funny about that.

It's easy to get confused in these races because the candidates are pretty aggressive and sometimes pretty uptight about these things.

So I suggest that you look around at who's supporting us.

My opponent has some endorsements.

He has a few endorsements from people that have always endorsed and political races and have always endorsed Democrats no matter what.

What's unusual that's going on in this campaign is the groups that are getting off the sidelines and and getting into the election that have previously taken no stand.

Agriculture, for example, 11 Kentucky agricultural groups have said we like the work that Senator Mitch McConnell has been doing on the Agriculture Committee for Kentucky's farmers, and we think he ought to serve another term.

None of those 11 groups have ever endorsed anybody before for anything.

Health care.

We've talked a little bit about that here tonight.

Probably the number two issue of the night is right behind the deficit.

Very, very important subject.

He's got a health care plan.

I've got a health care plan.

If you're a little confused about that, what about the Kentucky Hospital Association, which represents 95% of the hospital beds in our state?

Never endorsed anybody before.

They say we like the work that Senator Mitch O'Connell's doing and he ought to get another term.

A lot of you may be involved in business, particularly small business.

Small business, of course, is the real job generator in our country.

20 million new jobs were created in the decade of the eighties by small business.

The Kentucky Chamber of Commerce never endorsed anybody before, had a history of sitting out of political races.

This year, the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce, Chamber of Commerce said we can't afford to lose Senator Mitch McConnell.

He's been too good for business.

And if you're concerned about crime and drugs and we've talked about that tonight, the Kentucky FOP is supporting me.

And there's one last endorsement I want to mention.

Went by to see Senator John Sherman Cooper.

He's 89 now and he couldn't make it down to Kentucky.

But he said, tell him I'm for you.

Thank you, Senator McConnell and Dr. Sloan.

This debate was sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Kentucky, and it's 15 local leagues around the state.

Thank you for watching.

Good evening.

The League of Women Voters of Kentucky Senatorial Debate Night has been a special presentation of wave three news.