Major funding for election 2022 Arkansas PBS debates is provided by AARP Arkansas, with additional funding provided by the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce.

From the campus of University of Central Arkansas in the studios of Arkansas.

PBS this election.

2022 Arkansas PBS, U.S. House of Representatives District one debate.

54321 Upon Jim acoustic.

And hello again everyone, and welcome once again to debate week here on Arkansas PBS at this hour, the candidates for Congress from Arkansas's first district.

And they are, in alphabetical order, the Republican nominee and the incumbent representative, Rick Crawford, and the Democratic candidate and current representative from Arkansas House District, State House District 55.

Representative Marty Hodges.

Now, the questions for the rebate will be coming from tonight from George Jared of talk business and politics and Christina Munoz from Arkansas PBS and the natural state update.

I'm Steve Barnes.

The rules for the debate, as always, have been agreed upon by the candidates prior to the debate.

And they are these.

Each will have one minute to respond to questions.

The candidates will have 30 seconds.

For rebuttal or an expansion if they choose and at the conclusion of questioning, each candidate will have one minute for a closing statement.

The order of candidate appearance was determined before the broadcast in the toss by the toss of a coin that was overseen by the candidates or their representatives.

Our first question tonight is from Mr Jared and it goes to Mr Crawford.

Congressman Crawford, this is a question about Arkansas AG trade.

Our approach to the Chinese buying American rice has not worked.

Every few years, some lawmaker will make news touting some new and improved agreement with the country that never materializes into a significant amount of Arkansas rice being sold to the largest rice consumer in the world.

How do we need to change our approach in this regard?

Well, I think this is a pathology with the Chinese where they promised they want to do business with us.

They just got to get a look at our operation and yet we never see this materialize.

I think we have to rethink the way that we do business in China.

And I think honestly as important as that market is, I think we need to view it in the through the lens of a retail destinations.

That means we need to have a much more prominent presence in the Pacific Rim with trading partners with which we already have agreements, for example, Japan or India or even Vietnam and allow them to be distributors of our products, whether that be rice or soybeans or any other products that they're reliant on.

And I would say this that China's demand picture is inelastic.

They're going to need US farm commodities, whether it be corn or soybeans or even rice.

And I think they throw up these barriers because they want to come to the United States.

They want to come to Arkansas, and they want to steal our proprietary information and take it back and use it in China.

And we've seen the evidence of this with those rice reachers, researchers and at the University of Arkansas that were caught stealing proprietary research.

And I think we need to rethink our relationship with regard to trade in China.

And one minute now from Mr Hodges.

OK.

Thank you, Sir.

Thanks for the question.

You know I'm no expert on agriculture but I know that I live in a district.

District 55 is probably the the largest row crop producing county in this in the state of Arkansas.

And so I know how important it is not to have barriers for our farmers to be able to trade freely in this country.

So you know I would make every effort I could being that we are in a large I've traveled throughout this entire first Congressional District and.

And I, I've seen all the farm fields, all the cotton and all the soybean, all the things that we're growing here in the state.

So most definitely agriculture would be on the forefront of any decision I make.

And I would ensure that we not make it cumbersome for our farmers to be able to trade abroad.

And we go back to Mr Crawford.

430 seconds, Sir.

Yeah.

I think what I said before, we, what we see is a continued aggressive and belligerent posture from the Chinese with regard to trade here in the United States.

And that's particularly problematic for us here in the state of Arkansas because we are prolific rice producers, obviously, but we're a significant soybean producer as well.

So I do think it's important that we rethink our posture with how we access a very important market in the global marketplace.

Mr Hodges, you have another 30 seconds, Sir, if you choose.

And, you know, I would assure that we not have barriers that we would look at not having barriers with allowing our farmers to be able to trade abroad.

All right.

Our next question comes from Miss Munoz, and it goes first to Mr Hodges.

OK, thank you.

So if elected, you will be representing the people of Arkansas within your district.

What makes you qualified for that position, Mr Hodges, we start with you.

Thank you for that question.

You know, the 1st district is if there's 31.

Counties in the first Congressional District.

We are the poorest Congressional District in the state of Arkansas, with the lowest median household income.

Lower than that of Mississippi since I've been elected went into the State House as a freshman legislator.

My colleagues entrusted me to carry the largest economic incentive package to state that ever offered which is Amendment 82 which drew big River Steel $1 billion steel mill to my district.

Now my district has the and and and since then US Steel has combined and made a $4 billion seed.

So since that time a corner of the state which was considered economically dead at one time is now the largest steel producer in the US.

Has the largest, has the highest weekly take home earnings in any other district in the state of Arkansas.

So I'm proud of that record of economic development and I need to take that throughout the entire first Congressional corridor where it where it's where the people are struggling and and and seeking good jobs.

Mr Crawford you have one minute Sir.

Yeah thank you for that question.

I think it's important that we we we view economic development as as an important topic and we tend to focus and and and we should because Mississippi County is a case study.

And how to do things right with regard to attracting new industry, it's Ground Zero for steel production.

It certainly is the largest steel producing county in the nation.

But we also need to look beyond the county of Mississippi County and look to the whole first district and recognize the value of economic development.

And it's not always smokestacks on the horizon.

Sometimes it's the small mom and pop businesses that account for three, four or five employees that can help empower rural economies.

And so I think that's important to note as well.

But I would say this, I've served this district now for six terms.

I know this.

District, very well.

I have a a very broad agricultural background.

Agriculture is our #1 driver of our economy and this in this district, in fact in the state.

So I think that I'm very well suited to have served this and to continue to serve this district.

We returned to Mr Hodges for 30 seconds.

Yes, again, as I've traveled this district, it is the poorest district in the state of Arkansas.

And the the question that that that keeps coming up is we want those good jobs.

What are you guys doing in Mississippi County to bring?

Of economic development to your we we won't we won $125,000 a year job just like you guys have.

I'm a banker I know the importance of small business.

I undergird small business all the time.

I I write business plans for small business.

I work for the largest community Development Bank in the in in the state of Arkansas.

So we definitely have to undergird our small businesses and support them as well Mr Crawford 30 seconds.

Yeah, I I do agree that small business is really the backbone of our economy whether it's in the state of Arkansas or across the country.

And and I think one of the things that that serves those small businesses good education.

What we've done in our office is to pair up educators with industry and and we do an annual STEM tour where we partner with Arkansas State University, bring educators to industrial sites so they know how to prepare their students for the skills that are going to be necessary for them to thrive in the workplace.

Question for both gentlemen of course and obviously we'll begin a congressman with you.

Gonna follow up on Mr Jared's question a bit.

For multiple generations now, Arkansas farmers have wanted to sell their products, both row crops and protein, to Cuba.

It never seems to go anywhere either.

The embargo remains in place.

What can you do to lift that embargo?

And is this the time to resume negotiations on that in light of the Cuban Government's lack of cooperation alleged regarding the?

The oral assault on the US Embassy there.

I I think it's important that you, you, you mentioned that and thank you for that question.

I've traveled to Cuba many times.

I've been on the forefront of trying to normalize AG trade relations with Cuba.

It's been a difficult obstacle and most of those difficulties are thrown out by the Cuban government themselves, not the Cuban people who want us there.

And we have a familial bond with the Cuban people.

If you really want to get right down to it, we should be doing business in Cuba, but we can't do it because their regime prevents it from happening.

They control everything that.

Communist regime, there really is the the main impediment to us being able to engage in commerce.

They don't pay their bills and they have a history of that.

Certainly Cuba would be an awesome destination for Arkansas Rice.

As I said, I've been there many times.

I have taken farmers from Arkansas to see what they have available to see how we might be able to access and again and again they throw up roadblocks.

This time it was with their doubling down of of support of President.

Maduro and Venezuela you mentioned the Sonic attacks against our diplomats.

Those are the kinds of things that prevent us from doing business in Cuba.

Mr Hodges you have one minute Sir you know it's it's it's my belief if if if if people don't want to do business with you you need to step back and and and and ask yourself do we really want to do business with them.

But you know about building relationships how are we building relationships when it comes to our our Cuban.

Friends or or the Cubans.

But it's all about building relationships.

But it it's my belief that if we're not, if they're not wanting us to to do business with them, then we need to step back and see if it's something that we really desire to do or should we move forward with it?

Alright, Mr Crawford, another 30 seconds if you choose, Sir.

Again, we had an opportunity.

We came very, very close.

I had an amendment on the floor that we could have passed.

And the Maduro, the the Dis canal regime, who I thought were going to be poised to be reformers, decided to take a different tack and support Maduro and continue to obfuscate on their responsibility for the Sonic attacks on our diplomats.

And I don't have the desire to spend political capital on this issue when we don't have a willing partner in Cuba to allow for us to trade.

Here Mr Hodges, another half minute again it goes back to what I said and I think it was just repeated that you know if if they have no desire to to do business with us while we continue to pursue it.

Let's just step back and and regroup and see what how do we, how do we move forward from this point George, Jared first to Mr Hodges.

In Arkansas, it's virtually impossible to get an abortion now, even in cases of rape and incest.

Mr Hodges, should there be exceptions to that, to those laws?

And if not, tell us why.

Absolutely.

You know, I spoke against this bill during the 93rd General Assembly.

Adamantly.

How restrictive it was, you know, it's, it's a, it's a woman's health issue and it's a.

Human rights issue and I think we.

We've crossed the line when it comes to telling women what they should do with their bodies, particularly when it's a a health risk involved.

And so most definitely I did did not support it then abortions are going to happen.

What what's going to happen is we're going to have these underground abortions where people go back to using clothes hangers and turpentine, which will then not only hurt that child but but hurt that mother as well.

So it's it's a health issue with me more than anything.

And if that, if, if, if the women's right issue.

Mr Crawford.

Yeah, thank you for that question.

I have demonstrated over the years, I'm, I'm very much pro-life.

I've been endorsed by national rights Life, Arkansas, right to life and I believe in that.

I think the question we should be asking are what aren't the restrictions that the Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are are not willing to entertain.

For example, they are pushing a bill in the House of Representatives right now that would say it's OK to take the life of that unborn child right up to the point of delivery and there may be even there's some Gray areas in that.

Legislation that may even allow for partial birth abortion, which we had thought had become a thing in the past, but now we see significant language that could inject doubt into the to the the future of banning the practice of partial birth abortion.

So I think a more relevant question would be, what do you not support with regard to?

Are there, are there no limits at all?

Are we, are we saying that right up to the point of delivery that it's OK to take the life of that unborn child?

And I say no to that, Mr Hodges.

You know, we, we, we need first of all, we need to leave it up to the experts.

You know I'm a man.

So I know nothing about a woman's reproduction.

I know nothing about a woman's body.

But I know she knows best what's what's what's best for her.

And you know we have laws put in place like Stand your ground.

I know more want to kill a person because I feel threatened that they're going to attack me when we already have a, you know, a great laws that protect us.

Then I do want to hurt, hurt, hurt an unborn child.

But you know we're looking at a health issue of that mother and that's that's that's what's that's what's important to me.

And Mr Crawford, back to you.

Yeah, again, I would just say this that I don't think and this is.

A question that's not asked often enough for those of us that are pro-life and and we tend to get this question a lot but the question is never asked on what restrictions are you willing to entertain if you are pro-choice.

And at this point we see the Democrat Party in in in Washington's position to make that carte blanche any point during that pregnancy without regard sex selection you name it you can have that abortion and I don't support that.

Miss Munoz has our next question.

It goes first to Mr Crawford.

Yes, thank you.

So as you might know, in preparation for these debates, we also allowed viewers to submit questions via social media, and we want to be sure we get some of those in.

So this question is coming to you from Garland County.

Senator Ron Johnson has said he wants to see Social Security and Medicare be moved from entitlement status to the annual discretionary budget.

And a lot of our Kansans, as we know, use those programs.

Do you support a plan like this?

Why or why not?

Mr Crawford, to you first, I think it's relevant to talk about how we take all mandatory spending and put it into discretionary spending.

Not just entitlement programs like Social Security, but I think we also need to be thinking about how our open border is putting pressure on social programs because those social programs, particularly Social Security, Medicare are designed to support American citizens.

What we're going to see because of Joe Biden's lack of concern over the the border crisis that we see where millions of.

Illegal aliens are coming into this country.

They're going to avail themselves of those resources that people have worked for and and and expect to receive as senior citizens and those benefits are being diminished and we're seeing that that that money diluted over the course of years.

That bad policy like open borders creates that problem that makes it even worse.

And so I'm for putting all of it in discretionary spending and and make us do right by the American people.

And spend their tax dollars more wisely.

Mr Hodges you know I think what what what what first of all what needs to happen is you know we, I think people think politicians have all the answers we need to.

We need to hear from the the the our from Arkansas and from the from citizens to to to to to first of all educate them on on on the on the issue and then get feedback from them on how can we better serve you when it comes to issues like social Social Security.

You know, I can't focus on on issues like.

Bought protecting borders when we have issues and concerns right here in our backyard, particularly in this first Congressional District, which is, like I said, a poor district.

You know, a, A saying that I heard coming up as a kid is that charity starts at home then goes abroad.

So we need to focus on our issues here at home before we can try to deal with issues abroad.

At this point, Mr Crawford, you have another half minute if you choose.

Well, I think we need to walk and chew gum at the same time.

We do need to work it.

Worry about our border crisis.

That's imperative.

It's a national security imperative.

We have to have a secure border.

If we don't have a secure border, we don't have a country.

And if we don't have a country, what's the point of messing with Social Security?

The point is this.

Social Security has problems.

It's rapidly approaching the point at which it will no longer be liquid.

And the border crisis is exacerbating and accelerating that problem to the point that we are going to not be able to keep it promises to our senior citizens, Mr Hodges.

So Social Security has had a problem for a long time.

We keep it.

Sovereign.

At this point and work on like I said getting people together getting people in the room finding out the best solution to to to to fix it and again you know I can't focus on border issues when I have issues here in the first Congressional District that I need to need need to address.

You know I'm not saying that we should have an open border and and but but we have to address things right here in Arkansas first question first for Mr Hodges and it follows up on.

On Mr Jared's question regarding abortion since Roe was repealed, there have been proposals in and out of Congress from the left and the right from conservatives and progressives.

That abortion should be addressed statutorily, either guaranteeing the right to an abortion or banning abortion.

If you are elected, Sir, how would you, how would you regard that legislation?

Would you support it?

Absolutely, I would definitely support it.

You know, like I said, I've been consistent in in, in my decision when it comes to a law that was in place 50, almost 50 years ago that we've dismantled and you know.

Because it it, it worries me that if we can so easily dismantle law that's been in place for 50 years are they going to come after civil rights legislation.

Things that affect me that the people that look like me, so we that's a slippery slope.

So most definitely that would be something I definitely would address because it's it's it's a it's a woman's right issue and it's a health issue as far as I'm concerned, Mr Crawford.

Well, I would think the Dobbs decision, my opinion is it's the right decision and that it, it relegates that decision to the state legislatures and the 10th amendment is clear on this for for those issues that are not specifically listed in enumerated in the Constitution, the authority to address those issues resides in the States.

That's basically what the Dobbs decision said.

And so it didn't outlaw abortion.

It said the states would make that decision and I support that with regard to legislation I don't support.

Certainly don't support the legislation being proposed by Speaker Pelosi and and Senator Chuck Schumer.

As I mentioned before, that allows for abortion on demand for any reason right up to the point of of delivery and may even provide enough Gray area that the interpretation could extend to partial birth abortion.

So no I don't support that at all Mr Hodges.

You know you know we've we've made this about partisan when it should be about people.

It should be, it should be about that.

It should be about.

Women.

And it should be about their rights to choose what they would like to do with their own bodies.

We should not be making those decisions as as lawmakers.

And I just adamantly believe that we've just overstepped our boundaries.

And I would support any efforts to ensure that we get back to allowing the woman to make her own decision.

Mr Crawford.

Again, my position is that the Dobbs decision got it right.

I think even Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed that the road decision was problematic because of the 10th amendment.

The Dobbs decision relegates that authority to the states where I think it should reside.

Mr Jarrett has the next question, and it goes first to the congressman.

Congressman, this is a question about election integrity.

You voted not to certify the election of Joe Biden as president of the United States.

Do you now believe he was lawfully elected?

And if not, what specific evidence do you have of election fraud?

And I'll make an addendum to that question for Mr Hodges.

What steps do you think we need to take to ensure that we have safe and secure elections in the United States?

There were two states addressed.

On on the on the certification Arizona and Pennsylvania.

In both those cases, there was a demonstrable violation of the US Constitution in that unauthorized individuals changed election law in cycle while it was happening.

Whether that be a judge that extended the deadline for absentee ballots or whether that be.

Secretary of State or or Commissioner that allowed for drop boxes and unauthorized locations, whatever.

Article 1, Section 4 is clear.

The authority to regulate elections resides exclusively with the state legislature.

Governors can't change the law, secretaries of state can't change the law, and neither can judge us.

That was the basis for my decision and no other conspiracy theories or fraud theories were present and and I've been consistent in that from day one.

Mr Hodges who I mean, I mean who, who, who says that we do.

I think we do have a fair election process to be the only Arkansas, Arkansas delegate to sign off, not to validate the election which it was a conspiracy theory from my opinion which led to.

January 6th.

Is I can't, I can't wrap my mind around it.

We have a fair election process.

We are, we we're we're starting to put measures in place.

Voting should not be cumbersome.

We should, we should make the process as less cumbersome as possible so that people can.

Cast their ballot because you know in in in this democracy and have a choice because that's their voice.

But to say that you know the the election was stolen is is baffling to me.

Mr Crawford, back to you.

Well to be clear I never said the election was stolen.

I said the constitution was violated in those two cases that I cited and the evidence is clear on that.

That's number one.

I'm also glad to hear my opponents say that he thinks we have fair elections because so often we hear Democrats talking about any number of of made-up.

Cases where they feel like there's, you know, Republicans are engaged in voter suppression, which is just not true.

And so there's that's progress.

I will.

I will say that.

But I remain committed to the statement I just made.

Pennsylvania and Arizona were the two opportunities we had to cast a vote.

And in both cases the Constitution was violated.

Mr Hodges, back to you for 30 seconds.

So let past tense, we had fair elections.

You know I'm, you know, I'm not going to get into this partisan.

Blame game, but the you know the Republicans have put suppressive legislation in place, voter suppression legislation in place over the past several years that make it difficult.

Arkansas looked more like DC this past 93rd, you know, similar than I've ever seen when it comes to voter suppression legislation.

Miss Munoz has a question that goes first to Mr Hodges.

Yes, as we have mentioned, both the steel industry and agriculture are key in your district and both are taking a major hit with the negative impact.

And with the negative impact of the economy and the downturn of the economy going on, what can be done in this role to help?

Not only are Kansans.

But the Arkansas small business owners in your district, Mr Hodges, thank you for that question.

You know going back to what I said earlier the, the the eastern Arkansas is now the largest steel producer in the US have we have the highest weekly take home income than any other district in the state of Arkansas.

So we've done some things right in.

In eastern Arkansas when it comes to economic development, we there, there and I went to hell in West Helena, this, this is the business called Delta Dirt where the that these small business owners have made sweet potatoes, they make, they make gin and they make vodka out of it.

A very family owned business.

They got it right.

They were creative and we need to ensure that we undergird businesses like that that are creative and ensured not not that they just start a business.

That, that, that they are sustainable because we see so many businesses that don't have the capital to to stay sustainable.

So we need to ensure that we make sure our small businesses are sustainable.

One minute for Mr Crawford.

Yes.

On the steel industry, I've been chair of the Steel Caucus or Co chair of the Steel Caucus for the last three, I think maybe four.

My 4 terms in Congress been there's not a stronger advocate for the steel industry than than me.

I think that's important to note to serve on the ad committee.

I know how important AG is to our to our economy here in in Arkansas.

I got a call from a farmer earlier this week and he had been alerted that expect interest rates to be.

At 9% and possibly above for your production loans next year, we are on 4% interest rates for this year's production loans.

We have not begun to feel the effects of what this economy will will rake on, on our consumers and we could reverse course easily and help our small businesses, help our steel industry, help our ag industry thrive by just making some simple decisions for this administration to to return to a domestic energy production for example and see these interest rates.

Starts to decline and improve our supply chain, access to goods and so on, so there's some simple things that can be done to address it, Mr Hodges.

You know Speaking of you know energy and things of that nature you know they're they're the bill that was put on a bipartisan bill bill back better which would have addressed the energy issues and things of that nature that my opponent voted against and an infrastructure bill that would vote against and and and all the you know agriculture all these things are tied to infrastructure, tied to energy and all that and so.

You know, we, we, we have to ensure that we're, we're, we're doing things here, here at as, as lawmakers to ensure that they're successful.

Mr Crawford.

Yeah, let me say this.

I've served on 2 conference committees for Hwy Bills, Fast Act and MAP 21.

The infrastructure bill was a partisan exercise in the house.

We didn't get any opportunity to amend that and then there was no conference.

So that we had an opportunity to further refine that legislation.

So to call that a bipartisan bill is a stretch on a good day.

There's no reason to think that Bill was anything but a partisan exercise that enhanced and forwarded President Biden's ability to to create more economic problems here in this country for both the gentleman.

Mr Crawford, we'll begin with you.

You have a debt.

The Congress has a debt a vote coming up soon and there apparently is a movement or so we're told to address entitlement programs or allow the debt ceiling to expire is and one of your colleagues has suggested from Arkansas has suggested that default should be an option in the negotiations.

And if I may follow up Sir did I understand you to say did we understand you just say that undocumented immigrants are participating in Social Security and Medicare Now what I said was.

To clarify that at some point they will receive those benefits and and they haven't paid into the system and so therefore it's going to put more downward pressure on our ability, our solvency of those of those funds.

So just to clarify that that that wasn't my point at all that although for what for what we know it's quite possible that they are receiving those benefits.

In fact, I had a farmer send me an IRS form asking H2A workers to apply for a $30,000 tax credits.

So we don't know the extent to which.

Um, illegals and legal immigrants are being engaged by agencies such as the IRS.

So just to clarify on that, and in fact it probably didn't clarify, it probably muddied the waters even further.

But that's that's emblematic of the problem on our border.

As for the debt ceilings are in default, OK and the I don't think we need to default, but I do think we need to do some things differently and fundamentally change the way we spend taxpayer monies.

And that's going to require, quite frankly, a constitutional amendment, balanced budget amendment or spending limitation amendment.

Mr Hodges.

No, I don't think we need to default.

You know, we, we, we've dealt with a pandemic that nobody expected to happen, which has caused all kinds of issues.

A war so a lot has transpired nobody has a crystal ball you know I I have a, a my major was bit was with with business administration finance and emphasis and economics and even our our our greatest economist.

Can't predict the future.

They have no crystal ball to determine that things happen.

So I most definitely don't think we need to put a a a cap on it.

Mr Crawford.

30 seconds.

Again, we have a problem with spending in Washington.

And the way I think we can address that is to fundamentally alter the way Congress spends your money.

We can do that with a balanced budget amendment, which I have voted on before.

Happy to do it again if I get the opportunity.

Or we can do it with the spending limitation that cap spending as a percentage of GDP.

In either case, if we don't change the way Congress spends your money, we are going to see this crisis bubble up year after year after year and it becomes a political issue and a wedge issue that we don't make good choices on.

Go back to Mr Hodges for 1/2 minute if you wish, you know.

The recent Inflation Reduction Act is, is, is, is, is, is dealing with that that issue when it comes to the deficit.

So it's been addressed through that piece of legislation which we hope to help, you know, solve that problem.

Mr Jarrett has a question.

First for Mr Hodges.

Mr Hodges, Congress will formulate a new farm bill next year.

What specific changes do you think need to be made to the farm bill to aid Arkansas farmers who have had probably the worst season that they've had in decades?

You know, as I say, you know, I live in the largest row crop producing county in the state.

I know.

And even even even as a banker, I see, I see the, the, the, the, the.

$1,000,000 farm loans.

I see the things that our farmers have to deal with.

You know, I, I spoke with a friend who's a farm and he said, you know, farmers had 40 years to get it right.

They started when they're in their 20s and you know, and and by retirement age of 6065, you know, it's either feast or famine.

And so he said, you know, we, we miss, you know, we have one bad year.

It takes us two years to recoup.

And I think we need to, you know, we as lawmakers need to understand that.

And and put measures in place.

They're not getting a weekly paycheck or monthly paycheck or biweekly paycheck.

They're they're they're they're their livelihood is based annually is based on the price of crops if the price of equipment and things of that nature.

So we need to ensure that we.

Make sure our largest producers in the state are are are safe to the congressman for one minute.

Yeah thank you for that question.

I think it's there are there are a couple of issues that we need to focus on in the next farm bill.

One of them is there are some flaws in price loss coverage and that is that the the reference prices that that are the support prices that trigger a payment are based on 2012 production models.

Now the law didn't even go into effect until 2014.

So we were already two years behind but it wasn't indexed and so now here we are 10 years later.

Dealing with record inflation, record interest rates and we're still using a baseline of 2012 production costs.

What we've seen over the last year, we've seen input costs skyrocket, in some cases over 100%, in some cases fertilizer, maybe even up to 300% increases in those costs.

And so definitely that will be a first item up for bids is is indexing the PLC.

Now that will be difficult because that's going to score, but I think it's necessary if we're going to keep our farmers competitive and it's important that we maintain support for farmers because.

Feeding and clothing our nation is a national security imperative, Mr Hodges.

For 30 seconds, thank you.

You know, we just need to ensure that we.

That are that are that our farmers have what they need to succeed again, you know they don't they they they they they're they're not traditional.

Earners like we are.

You know I I receive a a paycheck every two weeks and they don't.

So we have to ensure that they are safe, that we ensure that they have the tools they need to succeed.

As and we go back to the congressman for 30 seconds.

Some of the issues that farmers face are not in the purview of the AG committee and won't be part of the farm bill.

But they need to be discussed.

One of them is stepped up basis on the estate tax.

We need to address that issue quickly and the other issue is finding alternatives.

In the tax code to incentivize savings for self funded disaster relief.

I've got a bill to do this.

It's called the Frame act, farm risk abatement and mitigation election.

I like acronyms, but the frame act does a tax deferred, a savings account that allows you to continue operation of your farm in the time of crisis.

In the event that you don't get disaster relief, we will pause gentlemen, for just a moment to allow me to remind the audience that the candidates can participate in a press conference directly following this debate you at home.

They participate as well by watching, so scan the QR code on your screen.

With your mobile device, you will see that QR code will keep popping it up periodically through the balance of our exchange.

Back to questions now Miss Munoz for Mr Crawford and this is another viewer question coming from right here in Faulkner County.

Will you support the proposed right to read Act, which supports funding to provide all public school students with access to a certified school librarian and a funded school library Congressman Crawford?

Well, that sounds pretty good.

I would have to say probably without having read the legislation not being familiar with it.

Honestly I don't know the the details of the legislation, but I certainly support the right to read and also support librarians.

I think librarians are integral to our education, particularly in K through 12 scenario.

So in general I would say yes, I would support the right to read, but I'd have to reserve the right to read the legislation before I can say definitively that I would support that legislation.

Mr Hodges, you know, reading is so fundamental.

I have a, I have a 13 year old and I, you know, I stay on him about, you know, reading night and I'll and I and I and I buy him books here for his large library book books on since I'm a bank, I I have books on finance having books on his culture and things of that nature.

And so reading is fundamental.

You know, again, I don't know much about the piece of legislation, but I would support anything that comes to ensuring that we put a book in kids hands so that they can grow.

Because once you get in your head you know no one can take can take that out.

We're very active in my district and and and and and blah blah with the Dolly Parton imaginary reading program where every kid is born received the book.

I think for the first five years of life we have stations set up throughout throughout the city that you can go and and get books out of to take home and read.

So I'm extremely supportive of libraries I'm extremely supportive of.

Librarians and extremely supportive of reading ohh Mr Crawford for 1/2 mile.

Yeah, I'll say it again.

I think it's important that we learn to read.

It improves our fluency and even in conversation, but our ability to read and our ability to write our critical tools to for success in in the workplace and in life, Mr Hodges.

Again, you know I support literacy, I support reading, I support any efforts that will be made to ensure that, first of all, our libraries are safe and funded and that we are putting books in our children's hands so they can grow.

Well, involving books and libraries and librarians and funding, the nation is seeing a wave of legislation involving reading and libraries on a on a cultural or social basis.

In the largest city, gentleman in your Congressional District, there is a movement underway to slash the library mileage by half, and we're talking about the city of Jonesboro, of course.

Mr Hodges, do I want your thoughts on that?

Would you support?

There, what's going on?

Absolutely not.

As a matter of fact, I received a call one day and I got in my car and drove down to a meeting that they were having dealing with the library issue.

And it's been made political and it shouldn't be and most definitely would not.

I've always supported library funding, even when when of the threat to their that they've cut it some, but they're the threat, you know, they were trying to really reduce the funding for libraries and I fought hard to ensure that.

To continue funding our library.

So no I would not support the effort in Craighead County and the and the things that they're doing to dismantle those the the the libraries system they have there in in that area.

But and I've spoken and I attended the meeting and addressed it and addressed my concerns.

As a lawmaker.

Congressman.

I think when you serve the public.

Whether that be as an appointed official or an elected official and whatever capacity, I think you owe it to your constituency, the constituency that you serve to be attuned to their needs and a reflection of the Community.

So we're not hearing both sides of this issue.

What brought this issue to the fore was the fact that the library in Jonesboro was engaging in LGBTQ story hour for children, things of this nature that is not.

An accurate reflection of the needs and desires of the community which it serves, and so the initiative to change that.

Seems to have been met with resistance by the people at the library and so.

While I don't like the idea of cutting funding to institutions that I think are important, I also don't like the idea of being indoctrinated by those institutions that are funded by taxpayer dollars.

And so it's incumbent on this institution to make the appropriate changes and we're not seeing that happen, Mr Hodges.

You know, there were there were people that had concerns about about that issue, but you had those that that that didn't have a concern about that issue.

So we have to.

Ensure that we are, are, are, are, are, are, are speaking on behalf of all people, not just a certain section of folks that we represent.

And it it was political, we made it political, and we can't use our strong arms, the politics and politicians to be bullies when it comes to issues like our libraries.

Back to the congressman.

Again, these public servants can and should be a reflection of the public that they serve.

If the greater public has a problem with this, then it's incumbent on those individuals to listen to those folks and say what can we do differently without discriminating, but at the same time understanding the sensibilities and the sensitivities of the funding from which they derive their their livelihoods, Mr Jared.

Congressman, Amendment four is on the ballot.

This election cycle would allow for the use of recreational marijuana.

Do you support or oppose the amendment?

And please give us some specific reasons why.

There are a couple of reasons and and maybe even more why I don't support that amendment.

I'll start with the liability issue for employers.

When we now open up recreational use of marijuana and you have a workforce that may avail themselves of that marijuana, you potentially set up a huge liability for the employer should an accident happen.

We know that that a lot of.

Attorneys like to like to sue companies for scenarios like that.

The other issue is, is finance.

So right now it's a schedule one drug at the federal level.

If the state says we're not going to treat it that way and it's going to be a legitimate business, we're still putting our banks in a position to effectively be laundering money.

So what we're seeing in places like Colorado where it is legal, you have those purveyors of marijuana that are sitting on stacks of cash that presents a major crime problem and a major.

Security problem and look our crime is bad enough in this country as it is we go to Mr Hodges you know I'm a supporter of of the amendment you know I am a banker and and those are some of the discussions we've had.

We're going to have to look at ways to be able to bank those monies that are being made the same with medical marijuana.

You know we have that issue and I think it I think that that that that in in the banking industry those are things that we are definitely definitely looking toward but.

I am in support of of recreation, the, the, the amendment for recreational marijuana bill, Mr Crawford, well beyond just the liability issue to the employer, beyond the banking issue with regard to potential laundering under statute.

There's also, I think, the social issues that we have to address and there's people that will argue this point.

I believe marijuana is a gateway drug.

We have enough problems right now with fentanyl coming through our porous border because our President refuses to enforce.

Our border and to maintain sovereignty on our border that why would we want to exacerbate that problem with legalizing marijuana and then potentially opening up young people in particular to experimenting with other kinds of drugs?

Mr Hodges, you have 30 seconds, you know, he said.

He believes it's the gateway away drug.

We don't know if it's the gateway drug or not.

So, you know, I'm just a firm believer that, you know in the.

When it comes to the amendment that we have so many young men that look like myself that have been incarcerated because of small amounts of marijuana being caught with or selling it.

And so I think it's been an issue we and and so I support them that the Christina Munoz.

So one of the biggest complaints I hear from Arkansans about politicians in Washington is that they participate in vote trading.

I'll vote for your bill if you vote for mine how will you ensure the people in your.

District that you will be voting your what is best interest for them and not you Mr Hodges.

You know me personally it's it's it's about people not politics you know I'm not going to DC to answer to a Nancy Pelosi or anyone else.

I'm going to DC to answer to the American people and the people of the first Congressional District.

I've I've I've I've voted against and spoke against many of my colleagues piece of legislation that that that I'm friends with.

From across the aisle, one particular story, I was sitting in the chamber and I text one of my colleagues and said I'm gonna have to vote against your bill and This is why.

And he sent me a text back saying, well I appreciate you letting me know just as long if you're tactful and classy about it.

And so you know, it's not about appeasing your colleagues, it's not about appeasing your party.

It's about the people at the end of the day.

And so it's it's people over politics when it comes to me.

Congressman.

You know, I don't really experience that a lot.

I I've been.

Focused on representing you, the folks of Arkansas's first Congressional District.

That's my job.

That's my priority.

And so I think most people, if you don't support their bill and they come and ask you about it and you tell them here's why I don't support it, they recognize that you, you've got a valid reason.

And ultimately on my voting card, it says the 1st District of Arkansas.

It doesn't say Wisconsin or Illinois or California.

My responsibility is to represent the 1st District of Arkansas, and I think most people respect that.

In fact, I've had some pretty heated.

Conversations because I wouldn't go along with certain things like budgets because of the things that we talked about earlier about the the fundamental problem we have with spending taxpayer money.

And so I've kind of earned the reputation of being my own man, if you will, and advocating for the first district of Arkansas.

And I don't trade votes and I really don't know anybody who does.

Mr Hodges, you have another 30 seconds.

You know my point says he's he's he's voted for the first district.

But going going through my list.

Legislation that looks like most of everything that has been voted on has been a no that would help the first Congressional District.

Like infrastructure, you know, you know, like the Chips Act which, you know, people have waited years to get automobiles because we, you know, we couldn't get the chips that were needed to go in these automobiles or or in appliances and things like that.

We have poor roads and bridges in the first Congressional District so.

Mr Crawford, you have another 30 seconds, Sir.

Yeah, I I think we get a little bit confused about what a good bill is and what a bad bill is.

That the the idea of the infrastructure investment and JOBS Act was a terrible bill.

As I mentioned before, all it will do is accelerate inflation and drive interest rates up higher.

It wasn't a good deal for for Arkansas, wasn't a good deal for the first district.

That's why I voted against it.

In fact, I didn't even get an opportunity to weigh in on that bill.

So talk about vote trading.

I wouldn't even have the opportunity to trade votes because they didn't give Republicans the opportunity to engage.

In that so-called bipartisan bill.

Gentlemen, thank you.

I would like to go back, Mr Crawford, and to both of you again to the library issue in Jonesborough.

Congressman, do you, you seem to be suggesting that library materials and offering should be subject to review by popular opinion.

Is that correct?

Well, what I'm saying is popular opinion drives an awful lot.

I mean, the reality is, if you have an individual who likes * should we put * in the library?

Well, my opponent says yes, because we need to serve everybody.

So let's put * in the library.

No, I think we we certainly do draw a lines.

I don't think it's appropriate to indoctrinate or sexualize children.

So I think anybody would agree with that.

So however you go about indoctrinating or sexualizing children, I would think that was wrong and I think most people would agree with that.

And if that's the case here, why would you not try to reflect the wishes of the people that you purport to serve?

That's, I think that's the heart of this issue and that's not what's being talked about.

And so I think it's important that the folks at the library reflect on what their mission is to serve the broader community.

And yeah, there may be some individuals who would like to see.

That maybe you could be a little more discreet in the way you present it.

Maybe you could have a section that is dedicated over here that that has a disclaimer that when you come into this section of the library, you may be exposed to things that might be offensive, but they even make that effort.

Mr Hodges, you have one minute, you know, just to say * is kind of stretching a little bit far, you know, but like I have a 13 year old son and he and, and I take him to the library, you know.

He has, he does not.

He has a decision to make and and and I as a parent has to have a decision to make.

I'm not going to take him to an area that I know that it's inappropriate for my child because I'm the adult and so, you know.

We serve people, we serve all people that's capital AL all people.

And for us to categorize to section people off into categories and to say this person's right and this person is wrong is is not the way we should operate.

And and I think that's that, that that is the way of thinking when you have a group of people with their narrow minded views.

You come against the libraries because they feel a certain way and that's just not how we should operate, congressman.

So we have a parental advisory on for lyrics and content on music.

We have parental advisories on on movies.

We have rating scales and so on.

But what I'm hearing is that that's not appropriate to do at the library.

If we have material that could be offensive.

You know what?

It seems like the left is offended by everything.

And yet they don't want to entertain the notion that some people might find that material offensive.

And therefore, maybe we should warn folks, because, you know, the left likes trigger warnings.

Why don't we warn folks that there might be some material in here that some might find offensive?

Mr Hodges, you have 30 seconds parental.

As I said, I'm a parent.

I take my son to the library.

So I oversee what he can do, what he can and cannot do, as far as the left, you know.

You know we we want we want to throw this blame game and we want to be divisive on on issues but it's it's it's it's a people issue it's a all people issue.

At the end of the day I I want to do what's best for everyone across the board not just a section of folks gentlemen wish we could continue with the questions but the time has arrived for closing statement as statements and again as determined by the toss of a coin.

Mr Hodge is your first Sir you have one minute.

Look, I'm Arkansas State review Monte High.

Just a little boy from the delta.

Born and raised, Mississippi County, single mother.

She raised four babies, saw her get up early in the morning and go to work.

And she raised us to work hard.

She drugs the church every Sunday.

Love God, to love family and to love community.

I've served my district.

They sent me back to Little Rock five times to be their voice, and I asked them to send me to DC to be a voice for all people.

I've proven it in the in the in eastern Arkansas.

What can happen when you put the work in?

I want to take that Mississippi County miracle that I've seen in my district throughout the entire first district so they can have all the opportunities.

We in the delta won't all the opportunities.

We want all the amenities and all the things that any other community has.

We want good roads and bridges, good infrastructure, good rural broadband.

We want affordable healthcare.

We want our teachers to make a livable wage.

So I'm Monte Hodges.

Elect me for Congress, for the first Congressional District.

Thank you, Mr. Rogers.

Thank you, Mr Crawford.

You have one minute.

Thank you, Sir.

I'm going to talk straight to the folks here at First Congressional District.

We are living in difficult times and you know it.

You're living those times as well.

Our nation's facing challenges at home and abroad.

Skyrocketing interest rates.

Rampant inflation.

We have an overbearing, rising belligerent China that's fueling our fentanyl crisis coming across our border unchecked.

Ukraine at war with Russia.

President Biden, when he got elected, promised to be a unifier.

Instead, he's been a divider, and he's driven our economy to the brink of collapse.

And all along.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been his willing accomplice.

We need to reverse course before it's too late.

We can't trust speaker Pelosi to lead any longer.

I'm your congressman.

Rick Crawford has been my privilege to serve you for the last several years.

I'm asking for your vote on November 8th and together.

We can help reverse course and save this nation.

Once again, gentlemen, we thank you for your time.

You can watch this and all of the other Arkansas PBS debates on demand at the Arkansas PBS YouTube channel, on the PBS Video app, and on our website.

And again, the candidates have the option to participate in a press conference directly following this debate, which will air live on YouTube as part of our live stream.

So scan that QR code on your screen.

And start watching on YouTube now.

We thank our candidates once again, our panelists and all of you.

Thanks for joining us.

Major funding for election 2022 Arkansas PBS debates is provided by AARP Arkansas, with additional funding provided by the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce.