Major funding for Election 2020 for Arkansas PBS debates is provided by Civic Arkansas, a Winthrop Rockefeller Institute program.

Additional funding provided by the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce from the campus of the University of Central Arkansas and the studios of Arkansas.

PBS It's election 2020 for Arkansas.

PBS Debates in 54321.

And hello again, everyone, and welcome once again to debate week here on Arkansas PBS.

At this hour, the candidates for Congress and Arkansas's first Congressional district, and they are in alphabetical order.

Rick Crawford, the Republican Party nominee and the incumbent Rodney governs the Democratic candidate, and Steve Parsons, the libertarian Party nominee, questioning the candidates.

This hour, Brandon Taber, news director of KOSU Public Radio, Jonesboro, Diana Davis of Katie News, Jonesboro and George Gerard of talk, Business and politics.

The rules for our debate.

Each nominee will have one minute to respond to questions.

The candidates will have 30 seconds for rebuttal if they so choose.

And as the conclusion of questioning, each candidate will have one minute for a closing statement.

The order of candidate appearances was determined prior to the debate, with a drawing observed observed, rather, by the candidates or their representatives.

And with that bit of housekeeping, it's time to begin our first question comes from Brandon Tabor, and it goes first to Mr. Crawford.

Okay.

How would you balance international aid and federal spending to tackle issues here in the U.S.?

Well, I think that's a pretty good question to start with.

Number one, we have a lot of responsibilities here at home.

What we've seen just over the past week or so with Hurricane Helene, for example, and we have Hurricane Milton bearing down on that same track again.

And the federal response has been poor.

In the meantime, we have engagements in Ukraine.

We have engagements in Israel where we're seeing the need for the United States to engage and to help.

And so I do think the words you chose to use balance is appropriate.

How do we maintain the appropriate balance and taking care of American citizens first and foremost?

And at the same time, making sure that we're working with and and helping to protect our allies.

But I think the first thing we need to consider is making sure that citizens and and places like North Carolina is just one example, that there is an appropriate federal response and that they are being taken care of.

Mr. Parsons, Sir, one minute.

So first, with respect to to aid foreign aid out outside this country, I believe there's no constitutional authority to be the world charity.

I don't believe there's there's constitutional authority to be the world police either.

We currently give aid to, I believe, over 130 countries, 29 of which are also sanctioned by the United States.

So that to me seems like a contradiction in policy.

I would absolutely there may be absolutely reasonable reasons to provide aid, but I don't believe that the federal government does that from my wife and I.

We contribute to to a variety of philanthropic activities, oftentimes dealing with with aid to foreign countries or aid to people in foreign countries in particular.

Not not foreign countries themselves.

So from my perspective, there's no constitutional authority to do it.

I put all the money here probably to cut down, cut the national debt.

To Mr.

Governments, one minute.

So I think balancing aid is is critical.

And I think that starts in Congress.

So I definitely appreciate starting off on on that on that note.

But balancing aid requires that we also identify the real issues that are going on in our communities.

And one of the biggest issues that I see is we have a lot of programs here in the United States and in Arkansas specifically that are underfunded.

And it's time that we go ahead and we start looking at how much are we really going to put outside of this country without then going ahead and supplementing and funding places like the Department of Human Services, places like the Department of Transportation?

I know a lot of constituents that I'm looking to represent are tired of 67 167 being under construction for over a decade.

So it's time that we do go ahead and balance some aid out.

And I look forward to working with our counterparts across the aisle and getting that done.

It's just amazing to me that we have an incumbent who has cohorts that support blocking aid from FEMA going out.

And then here we are looking to balance aid and helping people in disaster relief areas.

Back to Mr. Crawford.

30 seconds, sir.

Well, I'm not here to account for my cohorts that may or may not have an opinion on where FEMA money goes.

But I can tell you this FEMA money is important in an emergency.

That's why it shouldn't be used to house illegal immigrants and have all the money that was allocated for emergency relief in an emergency for U.S. citizens.

And instead, this administration has chosen to redirect that money on the front end, using it to house illegals and provide services that should go to American citizens.

Mr. Parsons, 30 seconds since this has already switched you to a FEMA topic and I'm okay with that, the FEMA should be eliminated.

It's it's highly political in terms of where that where the dollars go to.

It subsidizes people in high risk areas and to rebuild in high risk areas.

So FEMA's absolutely one of the.

And again, this is this is an instance in which my wife and I donate to disaster relief.

But I don't believe that the federal government has the authority to do this.

And FEMA does a terrible job.

Mr.

Governor, 30 seconds.

Unfortunately, we all can't rely on philanthropic endeavors and investments from the haves versus the have nots.

And we need FEMA.

We need the Federal Emergency Management Association.

We need that that organization.

We need our government to step up and do what's right in times of disaster.

And I don't think that when you start looking at the facts that you're going to find any money being diverted to any illegal immigration anywhere out of FEMA.

So I think that goes back to budgeting, and I think that goes back to reaching across the aisle and working with our counterparts there in Congress.

Diana Davis has the next question.

Who goes first to Mr. Parsons?

A new farm bill has yet to be passed in Congress.

This means a lot of uncertainty for farmers in the first congressional district they are facing.

Decreasing and declining prices for many crops and rising costs for fertilizer.

Farmers are saying an extension isn't good enough and that a revision is needed.

How would you work to make the next farm bill What farmers need?

With regard to modern farming practices and international trade agreements.

So first, let me put this in historical context.

1933, FDR signed the first farm subsidy bill.

In that year, unemployment hit 25%.

200,000 farms were foreclosed upon.

Today we have farm bankruptcy rates, which are less than half the national average.

Only 2% of farm households earn have wealth less than the national national average, the national median.

So to put this in context, you go it is a 90 year old program.

Fine.

I'd suggest that this is that the need for farm subsidies is gone.

I understand.

I understand having consistency.

Some of the kinds of things we can do for farmers is to help is to end the trade war with China.

China and Cuba cut tariffs, reduce regulations, and I'll talk later, I hope, about some of the other regulation options we have.

Since amount of time I will.

Yes.

I have to go to Mr.

Governor.

Not one minute, sir.

I think when it comes to when it comes to fixing our current agriculture issues, we've got to partner with the independent farmer and not these big corporate entities, as some of the farmers along my campaign visits have called them, places like Rice Island and Tyson.

We need to go ahead and get to the independent farmers on that and develop a coalition to figure out exactly what needs to come back and what needs to get cut.

For example, we've got cattle farmers in northern Arkansas that are struggling to go ahead and find a USDA inspector so that they can go ahead and get their cattle taken care of.

We have a problem with our rice farmers and a problem with our soybeans right now in Snow Lake, Arkansas, for example.

I learned that soybean is no longer subsidized federally.

This is a problem for people that farm, soybean and soybean is such a such a flexible and valuable commodity throughout the entire world.

We need to bring subsidies back and partner with farmers, just like calm down and snow lake to make sure that we're taking care of our people right here in Arkansas.

To Mr. Crawford, one minute.

Well, there are an awful lot of problems with agriculture that we're not going to be able to dissect in one minute.

But I will say this.

The House committee did turn out a farm bill.

The problem is the Senate has refused to act.

And so, to your point, an extension is woefully inadequate, where under a current extension, actually that expired a couple of weeks ago on September 30th, a little over a week ago.

And so that that uncertainty that that presents to farmers is a real problem.

But I would say this, that, you know, we need to stop looking at just one side of the equation here and start thinking about the supply side, as well as the output we need to think about.

If I could distill our problems in American agriculture down to one word, it would be consolidation.

We've seen consolidation that has taken away choice in in the marketplace.

For farmers, that means they have fewer choices on inputs, which increases cost to the producer.

We see fewer choices even on the output side, which reduces prices to producers.

So if we can tackle consolidation in the ag space, that's a positive step forward.

Mr. Parsons, 30 seconds.

Part of the problem with subsidies in general is it distorts basic business practices.

So, for example, farm subsidies will distort your planting choice, your crop choice, and these can lead to substantial problems.

The other issue is the subsidies we do have simply don't seem rational.

You could have a tiny subsidy if you're raising broccoli, but if you're the sugar industry, 60% of your revenues come from from those from that from subsidy sources.

Thank God it's 30 seconds.

So I think subsidies are needed.

I think we do need to help our farmers because at the end of the day, Arkansas feeds America.

We've got less than 1% of the overall American population right here at home in Arkansas.

But we feed 100% when people start putting food on the table that goes into rice, that goes into cattle, that goes into poultry.

And I don't think that we need to deregulate anything.

We need to make sure that we're not exposing ourselves to any kind of crazy pesticides.

But we need to bring subsidies back and that's just step one.

We need to partner with our independent farmers to make sure that everybody can be adequately successful in today's agriculture industry.

Mr. Crawford.

Again, I'll point to consolidation as being part of the problem, but are the root of our problem in American ag policy today is that it's not adequate to the challenges that a 21st century economy presents.

So we need to look at agriculture as an investment in national security because the ability of food to feed and clothe ourselves is a national security imperative.

And a country that can't do that is a country that is bound for two to to be in in peril, politically and otherwise.

George Gerard has our next question.

That goes first to Mr. Governors.

Yesterday marked the one year anniversary of the Hamas attack on Israel.

More than 1200 Israelis were killed in that attack.

And since then, more than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed.

What policy steps need to be taken to ensure that this war between Israel, a de facto war against Iran and these other terrorist groups, how is it at what policy steps need to be taken to end that?

So with with the war that is going on between Israel and Hamas, I want to say and I want to make sure that I'm clear, war is never the answer.

There's never been a winner in a war.

I served my country from 2001 to 2005, and I was in Iraq from 2003 to 2004.

I know the damage that a556 millimeter round can do, the generational trauma that it can bring.

War is never the answer.

What we need to do is we need to partner with the United Nations and start applying some real pressure.

We cannot stand idly by while one of our allies, Israel, commits war atrocities, killing tens of thousands of Palestinian people.

But we also cannot sit idly by and allow Arab terrorist organizations like Hamas to go in, as they did on October seven, 2023, and kill innocent women and children of the Jewish community.

We must take a stand and we must get to the table, and we must use the United Nations for exactly the purpose they were designed to do.

Mr. Crawford, One mother.

Israel is perhaps our most important ally in the region.

They were unprovoked attack on October 7th, a year ago.

We just commemorated that yesterday.

To suggest that Israel should not be allowed their sovereign right of self-defense is absolutely unacceptable.

And further to say that, well, what we're going to do is look for a solution from the U.N.

The U.N. has proven to be woefully inadequate and on almost every count, particularly as it applies to Israel.

And we see the rise of anti-Semitism that is that is seems to be proliferating across the globe and then looking to U.N. to to try to fix that problem.

I think that's the wrong way to look.

I think what we need to do is stand by our ally, Israel, understand that they were unduly attacked on October 7th in a brutal way that we can't even begin to comprehend the rape and murder that was inflicted on those over a thousand Israelis in an unprovoked attack is entirely unacceptable, and we should support Israel's right to sovereign defense.

Mr. Parsons, One minute.

One of the genuine opportunities that the US federal government has is to is to try and help broker peace.

Because Mr. Evans is right.

War was never the answer.

Israel and any other country does does have a right to respond and to protect their sovereignty.

But I think they're well beyond beyond that.

The US Constitution says that we have the right for national defense.

That's that's one of the roles of the federal government.

But that doesn't mean we're the world police.

Today we have military spending, which is double that of all all of the other NATO countries combined, ten times as much as Russia, a country, a country at war.

We cannot we have 750 military bases around the world.

We are a drone attack away from being pulled into all kinds of conflicts.

The US Constitution requires that the federal government compensate states for docs and force.

There's not a single word about compensating a foreign country for any of the facilities that we have around the world because the Founding fathers said that's not appropriate.

Got to call it Mr.

Governor's 30 seconds.

Having an ally does not mean that that's an unfettered get out of jail free card without being held accountable.

And I think that we've got to the point where this is overkill.

Every sovereign nation has the right and they are entitled to defend themselves, especially from unprovoked attacks on that.

I agree with Mr. Crawford.

But where I have a disagreement is the lack of accountability.

We're killing innocent tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians, and we're sitting idly by while we watch our ally do that.

And there's no accountability there.

It's time that we take a stand and that we do get the UN involved.

Back to Mr. Crawford.

I'm not sure where those were.

That information you just cited comes from.

Then when you say we're killing.

I think that probably you need to rethink the context of what you're saying there.

What happened was the attack on October 7th was probably greater in magnitude to Israel based on their population than what 911 was to ours.

And for us to pretend that this didn't happen and to allow Hamas unchecked to continue to attack Israelis without any accountability is just unacceptable.

We need to continue to stand by our ally, Israel.

And another 30 seconds for Mr. Parsons.

So a 30,000 opponents of Israel, many of them civilians, are killed.

You have to ask the question.

So so what is an appropriate response to me?

You can't stand by someone forever.

Let's say that the number becomes instead of 30,000, it's 100,000 or it's a half a million.

So any response has to be justifiable and in kind.

Thank you.

Mr. Taber has our next question.

That goes first to Mr. Parsons.

Okay.

Well, the opioid crisis is something that is impacting not only the nation, but Arkansas as well.

How would you tackle mental health in relation to criminal justice?

So there's a there's an important intersection.

The United States here are the three three items for intersection.

One is substance abuse, mental health and incarceration.

The United States has 4.2% of the world's population, but 25% of the incarcerated population.

This has been a two party failure for four decades now.

So with respect to the opioid crisis, this is in general one of the kinds of things I want to do.

Any libertarian wants to do is let's make drugs legal to the maximum extent possible.

Fentanyl is a special topic.

Most deaths from fentanyl are accidental.

You think that it's meth and now you've overdosed on fentanyl.

So I'm putting that in a special, special category.

But there are several studies that have indicated that that the treatment is 12 to 20 times more effective dollar per dollar than incarceration.

We can I.

This is an embarrassment.

Incarceration in the United States should be an embarrassment.

Got to go to Mr.

Governor.

Now, one minute, sir.

As a court appointed special advocate, I deal with families that struggle with the cycles of drug addiction.

Every single day I represent kids in foster care.

Does the best job I've never been paid for.

I absolutely enjoy it.

I love it.

And I think it's very, very needed.

And when you see the cycles of abuse, you start understanding that we are more reactive and punitive than we are proactive.

From a criminal justice perspective, the use of drugs is not criminal.

It is the after effects.

So if we can become proactive and encourage people to stop using drugs, we're going to see a decrease in theft.

We're going to see a decrease in strong armed robbery.

We're going to see a decrease in crimes across the board.

But we must start looking at things proactively instead of reactively and punitively.

We should not just look to punish.

We should look to help.

Mr. Crawford.

One minute.

Mental health issues often exacerbate drug problems.

And drug problems often exacerbate mental health problems.

And you mentioned fentanyl.

And I think it's important to to talk about this and drill down a little bit more on fentanyl because all of those are important and should be talked about in a variety of different contexts.

But as it applies to fentanyl, our biggest problem is our porous border.

And this administration's unwillingness to enforce border security and allowing fentanyl to come across our border unchecked in sufficient numbers to essentially decimate our entire population.

But what's worse is that people who have a predisposition to drug use, drug abuse are becoming victims of fentanyl.

It really out of their no fault of their own.

They might be using drugs.

But do we really expect that they're they're using drugs and they're discerning enough to say, well, this meth doesn't have fentanyl and this meth does.

But the problem really lies at the feet of this administration for allowing our border to be unsecure.

Another 30 for Mr. Parsons.

So certainly we we want to have reasonable immigration programs.

But with with respect to what I'm going to say, this Mexico is the most important country to the United States because they're our biggest customer and we need their help in two areas, immigration and fentanyl.

What the congressman would like to do is have a mexican steel tariff 25%.

This is the most important country to us.

And yet here we go.

We're going to antagonize them when the 25% steel term.

30 seconds for Mr. Collins.

Yeah, I think it's easy to go ahead and lay blame at the feet of an administration.

While we've seen Border Patrol funding getting cut year after year, Congress session after Congress session.

So I don't think this law is at the feet of every one particular administration.

But he's absolutely correct.

We need to go ahead and get the import of drugs under control in this country.

And what better way than understanding from a Border Patrol perspective on what tools they need to make sure they can fight that war on drugs?

And as somebody who's personally been to Mexico and killed with the Border Patrol agents down there, I would love to go ahead and propose some of those ideas when I have more time.

Mr. Crawford, 30 seconds.

I can't recall myself ever having voted for a cut to Border Patrol.

Quite the opposite.

But on the back to fentanyl, in coming across the border, not only is fentanyl coming across the border from Mexico, but so is dumped steel.

So this is this is a country that is a signatory to the USMCA, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

And yet they continue to be trans shipping partners for dump steel into our market and flood our market with fentanyl.

As far as I'm concerned, that requires punishment.

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

Governor.

Do you think Congress is more qualified than a patient or doctor to make reproductive decisions, especially those involving exceptions for abortion and such as in the case of rape or incest and also issues involving IVF and the storing of eggs?

Absolutely not.

And I want to make sure that people understand I went through IVF.

Me and my wife, we have two beautiful children thanks to in-vitro fertilization.

So this is near and dear to me.

A woman's right over her bodily autonomy should not be a debatable topic here on the debate stage.

This should be a no brainer.

Women deserve to have the right to make their own choices over their own bodies.

And that's the end of that discussion.

Now, I know Congressman Crawford, you know, is sitting here having a hard time remembering some of the votes that he cast because he rarely does.

So I want you to understand here in Arkansas, when we get to Congress starting in November, we're going to make sure that every single vote when it comes to a woman's bodily autonomy is going to go for women's rights.

Mr. Crawford, One minute.

Yeah, I know.

I'm very familiar with the votes that I cast.

Number one.

Number two, if my opponent were to get to Congress, he wouldn't get there in November.

He'd get there in January.

So check your calendar.

And number two, our number three, as you know, when you ask the question, I am pro-life, my Christian faith informs that value.

The Dobbs decision overturned Roe versus Wade and said, we're going to allow the states to make that decision.

I've never voted on any kind of a federal ban on abortion because we've never had a vote on a federal ban on abortion.

That power now lies with the states, according to the Dobbs decision, which I think is the right decision.

So I don't support a federal decision on that.

And my my stance on abortion has been clear from the time I got in.

This has been clear from even prior to my service in Congress.

Mr. Parson's One minute.

So the congressman says he hasn't voted on a federal abortion bill.

And I believe this is a state rights topic.

This is a state topic.

However, the congresswoman has co-sponsored more than one federal bill related to abortion.

So on this one on this topic, Congressman, I'm going to have to say I'm calling you a hypocrite.

Your facts are incorrect.

Go to go to his website.

I said I'd never voted on a federal ban on abortions.

Whose time slows us?

I know you said you won't talk to me.

I'll talk to you.

Well, let everybody has rebuttal time.

So if you would, Mr. Parson's, Go ahead.

Okay.

Do I get any time back or.

Well, so on with regard to the rape and incest issue.

I believe that this is this is a clear one.

A woman should have the right.

There should be an exception for rape and incest.

And so I can explain why later.

We have to go to Mr.

Governor.

Now, 30 seconds for Mr.

Governor.

So I know it's been quite a while since you've been the incumbent, Rick.

Just to let you know, when you check the calendar, there's a transition team that has to start getting you acclimated.

So I'm looking forward to getting an early start on the job in November.

Now, as far as Mr. Parsons goes, mentioning incest and rape as a court appointed special advocate, I've actually dealt with those very topics representing foster kids in court, going through these trainings.

I want to live in a world where there is no abortion, but I live in reality.

And until we can go ahead and start honoring our victims of sexual assault, rape and incest and stop victimizing women, we need to go ahead and provide them with bodily autonomy at the federal level.

Now, back to Mr. Crawford.

30 seconds, sir.

So, again, to clarify, there has never been a bill in my tenure in Congress to ban abortion, a federal abortion ban.

That's been talked about.

If and I haven't voted for that, I have voted on provisions that deal with that issue.

But, you know, the gestures from my my challenger over here obviously are not rooted in fact.

Yes, I am pro life and I will not apologize for that.

I have made exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother.

It's as clear as that.

The record shows that.

And that's where I stand.

And Mr. Parson's another 32 years ago in the debate, I thought it was Dancing with the Stars, the way the congressman danced around the question about whether there should be an exception for rape and incest.

At least now it seems like he's a little more obvious, a little more clear.

But still to suggest that it's a state issue and then to co-sponsor multiple federal abortion bills to me appears to be hypocritical.

Thank you.

Mr. Crawford gets the next question first, and it comes from George Jarrett.

Former President Donald Trump has made some erroneous claims recently that FEMA is running out of money because the money is being spent on immigrants.

There's a common sense question here.

If we're having this debate.

Does FEMA need more funding at the federal level and do we do we need to spend more money dealing with immigrants?

I'll answer that in just a sec.

The incorrect again from Mr. Parsons.

If I voted on federal legislation as it applies to abortion prior to the Dobbs decision, since the Dobbs decision was was ruled on, it has relegated that to the states.

Now it's a states issue, and that's where it should be.

On this issue of FEMA, I'm not sure where the facts come from, where you say that FEMA has not spent money on immigrants, housing and providing services.

That's true.

It has.

In fact, the White House has acknowledged that they've spent money to that effect.

This is a problem because FEMA should reserve that money to protect American citizens, because that's what it's for.

Protecting immigrants that have crossed the border illegally I think is a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars as it applies to taking away from FEMA to house illegals, when now we see in North Carolina there's a housing crisis that that Mother Nature wrought on places like North Carolina, east Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida.

And we have another one on the way.

Yeah, I got to got to go to Mr. Parsons.

One minute, sir.

So the with with respect to immigration, what I want to do and this is a topic that's been failed by both parties, this is two party failure with respect to immigration.

What I want is to streamline the process so that you can bring legal, law abiding immigrants to this country.

And to do that, there are there are a variety of things, things we can do.

First, we can streamline the bureaucratic process, get rid of the red tape with respect to temporary workers.

We can eliminate tariffs so that people in other countries south of the border, for example, can retain their jobs and don't have to come to the United States.

But let's be clear.

I want this.

If somebody has committed a crime in the United States, regardless of whether they're an immigrant or not, I want those people to be prosecuted.

But I want a clear process where we can streamline and bring immigrants into the United States.

Thank you, Mr.

Governor.

One minute.

Yeah, I think the claims are erroneous and I'm glad they came back up.

Now, as far as immigration goes, because we keep going back to immigration when there is a force majeure event, when there is a hurricane, when there is a tornado, when there is flooding going on in the community, I have never, ever seen or known a National Guardsman to ask, Are you an American citizen?

Before I pull you out of this boat and provide you with food and water that you might need?

FEMA definitely needs more money and federal emergencies happen.

We need to go ahead and prepare for that as best we possibly can.

As someone who was in telecommunications for 20 years, I've had to prepare for multiple force majeure events that I knew were coming along the East Coast at every single data center with Time Warner Cable.

I had to prepare in the Gulf of Mexico with EarthLink and I'm proud to say that I had to prepare Windstream for multiple years there as well.

It is for time that we go ahead and actually produce the funding necessary to take care of American lives and human lives in general.

I have to go back to Mr. Crawford now.

30 seconds.

We have a responsibility in this country to take care of American citizens.

We have an administration that has laid out the welcome mat and said anybody that wants to come in here can come in here, not through the door, but right across the border without any registration, without any consequence.

It's a felony to come across the border into the United States.

That's the law.

And my colleagues have agreed that we need to enforce the law, But they seem to disagree that we we shouldn't support Americans, citizens with money that's been allocated for them from FEMA.

30 seconds, Mr. Parsons.

So so back to FEMA limit.

Let me reiterate what I said earlier, and that is FEMA is is highly political.

So where the dollars go is political, but more importantly, it distorts decisions about where people live and what they do.

FEMA money disproportionately goes to areas that have are coastal areas that have high wealth areas.

And it is reinforcing the decisions by people to remain in high risk areas and rebuild in those high risk areas.

Mr.

Governor, 30 seconds.

We can continue to focus on all the negatives of FEMA because there's going to be a laundry list or we can start coming up with some real solutions on how to fix things.

And one of the biggest things is to provide the resources necessary so that FEMA can be successful.

And in the event that it is not successful, that's when you start holding accountability.

Right now, FEMA is woefully underfunded.

Right now, we've got humanitarian issues across North Carolina and soon to be Florida.

We need to fund FEMA and we need to allow our government to take care of its American citizens and any human being that might need it down there in those areas.

Mr.

Governor, thank you.

And before we go to the next question, a reminder that the candidates will have the opportunity to participate in a press conference and a virtual press conference directly following the debate.

And at home, you can scan the QR code that's on your screen right now, screen up with your mobile device to watch.

So you may want to get your mobile phones ready and you will see that QR code, by the way, periodically through the balance of our debate.

Our next question comes from Mr. Taber, and it goes first to Mr.

Governor's.

All right.

So the for the first Congressional District, it's pretty large.

It covers all of eastern Arkansas, north east, Arkansas, southeast Arkansas.

There are a lot of constituents in this district.

So how will you keep your constituents informed about what you're doing in office if you're elected or if you're still in office?

So once we get elected here in November of this year, we're going to hold quarterly town halls.

That's something that the incumbent has decided not to do in the last 12 years, and I think it's sorely needed.

We need to know who our congressional represent representation is.

We need to know who our state representation is.

And it's hard to do that when you don't have town halls and you don't have a presence.

Sending a delegate to a fish fry is not a presence.

We need a congressman who wants to represent your voice in D.C. We, need a congressman who understands the issues like Helena, West Helena being without water four times this year, like Elaine's water tower being one of the, I think the top six worst in the entire country.

Public education in the rural communities continues to run in shambles, and our congressman has no power, has been nowhere to be seen in the last 12 years throughout the Delta.

It's time for a change, and it's time to bring back town halls and actual civic engagement.

Mr. Crawford, One minute.

I'm glad you mentioned Helen and was telling me because I'm the guy that brought that to the fore.

I'm the guy that called the meetings in Helena West Helena with the mayor and with mayors in the surrounding community.

That was almost years ago.

So my presence in the district is felt directly and those constituents know it.

I've been leading on that particular issue for almost two years now.

So you put that one away as far as the communications effort.

What we try to do is engage through we have developed a cutting edge texting platform on our Web site.

Anybody who wants to get on our website can text me and we reply to those text messages.

That's a 1 to 1 communication.

We've had that up for years as it applies to the 31 counties that comprise this district.

We visit every county every year, multiple times in some cases.

And we have mobile offices.

We do that in an official capacity, and I do that in a personal capacity also as a campaign effort.

But I've been elected now, this will be my this is my seventh term.

So I would say that the folks in this district know me and trust me and have trusted me now to give me the job seven times.

Mr. Parsons, One minute.

So I think it is personal presence, whether it's a town hall or or some other form and social media, electronic presence are both likely to be important.

I'm going to take this point, however, to say thank you to everybody who's who's been responsible for putting on this debate.

It's particularly difficult as a third party to have your platform exposed at all.

So thank you.

Certainly.

Great.

Greatly appreciate this.

The I am going to have to go back to it to the one statement by by the congressman.

He has co-sponsored federal abortion bills.

So this is a technical ality.

Sure, he may not have voted on one, but I can't imagine that you would co-sponsor a bill that you didn't intend to vote on.

I believe it is a state issue and part of the reason you want to have an exception for rape, rape and incest is because now if you don't do that, it has nothing to do with taking responsibility for your actions.

Mr.

Governor, 30 seconds.

No.

And I'm glad that you you know, you say you brought that to the floor and you worked with the mayor down there in Helena, West Helena, because according to the people, you never come around and you're never there.

Rick So where's Rick?

Seems to be a common theme throughout the Delta.

And in addition, I know after the third time Helena was telling us water system went out, we paused our campaign and we brought water down there for a water drive.

And while we were doing that, you were in Harrison, Arkansas, doing a book signing.

So I appreciate the presence that you're providing to the people of Helena West Helena, but I think they deserve better.

And back to Mr. Crawford.

Well, I'd like to welcome you to Arkansas.

I'm glad you think in seven years of living here that you've got an answer to all the problems that exist here in the Delta region, which is an important part of this district.

The folks in the Delta region know me, have known me for years.

I don't know.

How in the world do you think that that you can come in here and suggest all these problems when you're fairly fresh to the landscape?

But let me tell you this, and my constituents know it.

I work hard for my constituents from from the from the Delta all the way up into the Ozarks.

Regardless, I don't ask what your political persuasion is when people stick their head in the door of my office, we offer solutions.

Mr. Parsons, 30 seconds.

So for for Congress in total, there are a large number of topics could have been solved, could have been dealt with.

This has been to party failure for a long time.

In this case, for the last 14 years.

It's it's Congressman Crawford.

But again, virtual electronic communication and in face communication, both are important.

Thank you, Ms.. Davis.

Now, first to Mr. Crawford.

There are at least 30 medical marijuana dispensaries in Arkansas, and yet it's still against federal financial rules for banks to do business with marijuana businesses.

This issue has left banks trapped between serving the needs of their communities and the threat of federal enforcement action.

The Secure and Fair Enforcement Regulation Banking Act, better known as Safer Banking Act, has repeatedly stalled in the U.S. Senate.

What would you do to resolve this issue?

Well, I think at the root of the problem is the fact that we have legalized marijuana.

And as long as that's what the state has voted to do, that's the law.

But we still have a problem with the federal law.

And so what amounts to, you know, a problem that would may be viewed as laundering money for banks that want to engage in financial services with medical marijuana clinics or possibly, you know, if we go down the road of of having recreational use in Arkansas, that the problem would be even worse.

And so unless and until we change that federal statute to get that off the schedule, this is going to be a problem for bankers.

You know, you didn't ask me what my opinion was on marijuana use medical marijuana or recreational use.

I'm not going to go down that road.

I think you can probably infer from context here what my position is.

But the problem that we have is we haven't even looked holistically about what the problems are with with legalizing marijuana.

On the one hand, we say we don't want our kids smoking, but on the other hand we're saying it's okay to smoke marijuana for a medicinal purpose.

One, what we ought to be thinking about is we're going to use it for medical purposes.

We ought to think about extracting the THC and use it in pharmaceutical grade.

Got to go to Mr.. At the end of my time.

I have to go to Mr. Parsons.

One minute, sir.

So first, think about the constitutional authority.

The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution is sometimes called the enumeration clause.

It says that if a power.

And this is I'm going to be combining the Ninth and 10th Amendments both together.

10th Amendment says if a power is not specifically granted to the federal government, resides with the states or the people.

The Ninth Amendment, the Founding Fathers were concerned that if we have a Bill of Rights, that it implies that we've enumerated all of the rights.

The Ninth Amendment says No, we have not enumerated all all of the rights.

And therefore, from my perspective, the Ninth Amendment, in essence, says everyone has the right as long to make a decision, as long as it doesn't cause obvious harm to another person.

It is in essence, the right to make mistakes, so to speak, on.

There's absolutely not a constitutional authority to have marijuana be illegal for the federal government in particular.

The states want to do that.

That's up to now.

Mr.

Governor's one another.

There are too many studies that show the medicinal benefits of marijuana and cannabis.

Cannabis, I'm going to use that term specifically.

Cannabis has been shown to limit seizures in epileptic children.

It's been shown to help PTSD sufferers like myself.

It has been shown to be so beneficial from a medicinal purpose.

Yet we still have it as a Schedule one narcotic, according to the federal government.

We need to go ahead and remove that and allow banks to start doing business and injecting that capital and making those investments so that if a state like Arkansas decides to introduce recreational marijuana in addition to the current medical marijuana that's allowed that we could go ahead and start reaping the tax benefits, rebuilding our schools and injecting some money into some sorely, sorely underfunded programs like the Department of Human Services Department of Child Family Services, our Department of Transportation, right here at home.

Mr. Crawford, 30 seconds.

Yeah.

Again, I think that federal statute prevents bankers from engaging in those transactions.

It's problematic.

It creates security issues for those medical marijuana clinics, potentially, because they may be standing on stacks of cash.

That presents a security problem for them.

So if we're going to address this, it has to it has to come from the federal level.

My position on it is, is that I don't particularly support I certainly don't support recreational use.

I have some questions about medicinal use.

But if we're going to do it, we need to do it right and allow the banks to engage in those transactions.

30 seconds for Mr. Parsons.

So definitely, I didn't quite answer the question earlier.

We need we need to fix the the banking issue.

But substance abuse in in prisons depends on the numbers you're looking at who study it is.

But up to 85% of those who were incarcerated have a substance abuse issue and you're way better off to treat it.

Making making this a criminal event to be a real crime, you have to have identified who the victim is.

And did the victim did the victim file a complaint?

Not true for marijuana.

Mr.. Yeah.

I think first step is removing it from the schedule list narcotics.

I mean, schedule one narcotic and we allow medical use for it.

I think we need to go ahead and just rip that Band-Aid off that would allow banks to go ahead and inject some capital that would go ahead and bring to the floor multiple different ideas on how we can go ahead and structure some capital investments in the private sector.

From a legislative perspective, I think we need to go ahead and rip that Band-Aid off.

I look forward to doing that, and I look forward to cannabis becoming more of a prevalent medicine use in in our current pharmaceutical industry.

George Jared Now, first to Mr. Parsons.

Illegal immigration has been a major problem over the last several years.

And in fact, it's probably been a problem for decades if we're going to be honest about it.

What's steps will you take to curb illegal immigration in the United States?

And I mentioned some of this some of this earlier, but there's been two party failure on immigration for a long period of time.

Each each party will be pointing at the other party in terms of what who they believe deserves the most, the most blame.

That doesn't make any difference.

The two parties have failed on this topic.

I want to streamline the immigration process so that we bring we allow legal immigrants, law abiding immigrants.

And as I as I started in the discussion earlier, it is if anyone commits a crime, a real crime, I want them to be prosecuted.

One of the things we can do, by the way, in terms of keeping the cost down is if it's if it's an illegal immigrant, I would try to cut a deal with Mexico where if once there once there, if they're convicted here, we will send them to be incarcerated in Mexico.

That'll encourage a little better.

That will send the signal.

So that's one of the kinds of things we can do.

Mr.

Governor, one other I think the drug cartels absolutely love this immigration debate because nothing seems to ever get accomplished.

We just keep blaming each other.

As Mr. Paulson said.

And I think multiple administrations own a lot of the blame here.

So I wanted to go ahead and look into this issue for ourselves.

And I went ahead down with a member of my campaign team, and we went to Mexico and stayed with migrants and asylum seekers.

And we stayed with Border Patrol agents in Douglas, Arizona, in Nogales, Arizona.

And what they told me was we need more technology and we need more resources.

So we need to bring back the drone programs that we used to have that actually monitored our border.

A wall is just a wall and anybody with a shovel can dig up underneath it.

And if you go to the website, Rodney for Congress dot org, you can actually see a hole underneath the 30 foot section of the wall.

There.

And outside of Douglas, Arizona, you can climb over it with a ladder.

And that's how the cartels are actually throwing people across the border.

We need better vetters.

We need a better immigration court system.

And we need to actually start holding people accountable and giving them the due process so that they don't need to sit and wait and what their what their future is going to.

CRAWFORD One minute.

So I think we we have to get a handle on illegal immigration versus illegal immigration.

And you know, Mr. Parsons mentioned crime versus real crime.

We're going to prosecute real crime.

But what's the difference?

Crime is crime.

So what's a real crime or is there a fake crime?

Is there something we should not be?

Is there a crime out there we shouldn't be prosecuting for?

I was a little confused by that, but I actually chaired a task force on workforce as it applies to agriculture.

It was H-2A reform.

It's really a shame that we can't work in this context.

It's a bipartisan effort put forth 25 recommendations to the committees of authority, 15 of which were unanimous, ten Democrats in Republicans.

So we've done a lot of work on dealing with immigration as applies to the workforce, but it doesn't take away from the problem at the southern border.

And quite frankly, you know, the cartels run the southern border as opposed to the United States government.

That's the real travesty.

So we need to implement remain in Mexico, Title 42 authority and by all means, build a wall.

Mr. Parsons, another 30 seconds.

So one of the things we do need to do is to make sure that US safety nets only exist for U.S. citizens.

We can build a wall around welfare.

One of the other kinds of things that we can do is we can have expedited review processes where you would have someone pays and we could even do this in Mexico, because let's face it, a lot of a lot of people coming across the border, they're coming with coyotes.

So if we can have expedited processing in Mexico, charge $2,000, it'll pay for itself and it'll help the process.

Mr.

Governor.

So I agree with Congressman Crawford.

Crime is crime.

However, I think we need to go ahead and define crime.

I don't think it's a crime to stand at the border and ask if you can seek asylum here in this country.

But I do think it's criminal to make that person wait three and four years for an answer of either yes or no.

I think we need to go ahead and focus our efforts in fixing our immigration court system, our vetting process.

And I really think that the wall is an answer, but it's not the answer.

We need drone technology to go ahead and isolate where these people are sneaking in from.

And, Mr. Parsons, it's key to Mr. Krop.

Mr. Crawford, 30 seconds.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Again, title two authority remain in Mexico.

Building the wall.

Those are all essential to achieve that border security we're talking about.

And we can sort of stanch the flow of illegal immigration.

But to say that crossing the border illegally is not a crime and therefore shouldn't be punished is is flat out wrong.

Crossing the border is a crime.

The problem that we have is the ability to adjudicate those crimes.

It takes forever.

So you turn them loose.

It's a catch and release.

And will they come back for their court date?

Probably not.

Mr. Taber as our next question, and it goes first to Mr. Crawford.

Okay.

Well, the First District is pretty expansive.

A lot of small communities in this district, and some of them have a little hard time of trying to get to fresh food and, you know, great grocery stores.

How would you tackle food deserts?

Yeah, the irony of the first District of Arkansas is it's one of the most productive parts of the world from an agricultural perspective.

And yet we have folks that are suffering from food insecurity.

How do we get fresh food to communities?

Well, the private sector is doing that to a large degree.

We're starting to see that, you know, companies like Dollar General that are willing to go into places that other companies aren't to set up those fresh markets.

That is very welcome in those communities.

But it's not enough.

It's not going to it's not going to meet all the demands of food insecurity.

And so I think that we need to think about how we might encourage private sector engagement.

That could be through, you know, some tax incentives.

We've talked about economic opportunity zones.

Senator Tim Scott has talked about that, particularly in underserved areas.

There's some opportunity to get the private sector to engage more aggressively as it applies to food insecurity.

And those are just a couple of suggestions.

But the other thing that I've been I've been very forceful on helping to raise money for our, for example, the Food Bank of Northeast Arkansas, and they do a fantastic job, too, Mr. Parson's one another.

So I believe the federal government does not does not have much of a role.

It does need to be primarily roles Below that is sustaining locals.

It's it's individuals like my wife and I who are willing to donate to organizations that help distribute food, especially people who don't who don't have the money to happen.

But but also, there are some regulatory constraints that make it a little difficult for for food distribution and some in some kinds of circumstances.

So I do the best I could to identify, root those out and not ones that are going to be causing cancer.

Mr. Jones So that's one of the one of the kinds of things we can do.

The other kind of thing we can do is at the at the macro level, we need to eliminate the trade war on cut regulations because these are the kinds of things that are holding food prices up generically.

It may it will help in part for, those kinds of areas that are that are food deserts.

Mr..

Governs one way.

Yeah.

I believe in small business and I believe that that is the answer, especially in our rural communities.

Our communities don't have they don't deserve to have to drive 45 minutes.

One way to get to a grocery store.

Now, if you don't have a vehicle, how in the world are you going to get there?

If it's a 45 minute drive?

I can't afford to take all day to walk from McGee to Dumas.

That's not that's not fair.

And I think we need to go ahead and open it up and develop more of our programs to be centered around the development of small business, specifically grocery stores.

And I think we can come up with some special subsidies just for those grocery stores to stay in operation and make sure that their losses are mitigated at some point similar to what we do with our farmers when it comes to rice and how we subsidize our rice crop.

Well, Mr. Crawford, 30 seconds.

Yeah.

Again, I want to talk about how, you know, role that some of our important entities are playing.

For example, the Northeast Arkansas Food Bank that has a broad coverage, almost the entire coverage of this First Congressional District.

But the food bank is they are a force multiplier as it applies to addressing food insecurity, not only here at home but across across the entire country.

And so that's important that we continue to support that.

But again, the private sector can do an awful lot of the heavy lifting here that supplements the, you know, the support that's already there at the federal level.

Mr. Parsons, 30 seconds.

So so again, this is primarily a private enterprise activity.

And I just want to have the federal government's stand back.

It's tempting, I know, to say we need a subsidy here.

We need a subsidy there with a $35 trillion debt.

We don't have the money to provide subsidies to at all all of the good things that you'd like to see done.

And by the way, a real crime is one where you can identify the victim as property and violent crime, or you can identify the victim and the victims.

File a complaint to Mr.

Governor.

I am ecstatic that the Northeast Arkansas food pantry is doing well because the Saint Francis County food pantry is not.

And multiple food pantries throughout the first Congressional District don't get the same amount of donations as the Northeast Arkansas Food Pantry.

Mariana Struggle.

Saint Francis County struggles.

Low note struggles.

It's time that we don't here and try to use food banks as an excuse.

We need grocery stores and we need access to healthy nutritional food at our fingertips.

As you get in the big metro areas.

And we need it right there in rural Arkansas.

Call time now.

Gentlemen, this concludes the question and answer portion of this evening's debate or of our debate.

Time now for closing statements.

Each candidate gets one minute.

And we begin with Mr. Parsons.

So 97% of incumbent incumbents in the House of Representatives win their race.

You might think that makes your vote unimportant.

That actually makes your vote more important because as a libertarian is a third party.

If I can get 4% of the vote, I should be able to send it.

We can send a message that business as usual big government as usual is no longer acceptable.

You can't do that by by voting for for Mr.

Governments, because it's going to be lost in the 22 to 25% of the vote he's going to get.

If you are tired of the hyper partizan bickering, if you're tired of the pro-wrestling style political theater, we can send a message.

If you think you can run your life better in the federal government, we can send a message.

If you want more liberty and less government, we can send a message.

We can do that.

You can do that by voting for me.

Steve Parsons, the libertarian, by the way, within 48 hours I will provide on my website the debate have references documenting every article I've made in this debate.

I got a call from Sir Mr. Crawford.

One minute.

Thank you.

And thank you all for being here.

And thank you for tuning in and watching this.

I've gone through this process many, many times.

I enjoy coming down here and having the debate.

Steve always does a good job.

We always have a really good bunch of questioners here.

Here's what I'm thinking about.

You know, this job requires a lot of travel.

As you know, there are capitals in Washington.

So I have an opportunity to to fly.

And if you've flown very much, you probably probably know that you get a safety briefing at the beginning of the flight.

And one of the things they'll tell you is if the airplane starts to lose cabin pressure, an oxygen mask will fall down in front of you and the flight attendant will tell you secure your own mask before you attempt to help anyone else.

If you can't breathe, you're no good to anybody else.

That's kind of a metaphor for our country.

We're on a plane right now that has lost air pressure and the mask is in front of us.

We need to be able to breathe before we can help the rest of the world.

We need to start putting Americans first and all of their welfare, and then we can be a good neighbor to the rest of the world.

Thank you and appreciate your vote.

Thank you, sir.

And, Mr.

Governor, one minute to close.

You've heard a lot here today, and we didn't really have a lot of time to get into all the details of it.

But you've got a lot of fear that's going on right now, a lot of uncertainty.

And we've got an incumbent who preys on that fear.

We've got an incumbent who says he goes down to hell in a West Helena.

Yet everybody that we've talked to knocking over 8000 doors has never even heard of them.

We've got water system failures in Helena, West Helena, and we've got a water tower failing in Elaine.

We've got cattle farmers struggling in northern Arkansas and we've got rice farmers and soybean farmers right here across the delta that are struggling to make ends meet.

It's time for change.

Now.

That change can't come if we continue to vote in the same feckless leadership every single election.

The only way that changes is with you at home.

Cast your ballot for a new voice.

A voice that you know you can trust, a voice that knows Arkansas, even though he's only been here for seven years, a voice that represents kids in foster care.

And as hard as he represents kids in foster care, he's going to advocate just as hard for you at home.

I have to call I have to call time.

Gentlemen, we are out of time.

And we thank all three of you for yours and participating.

Also, our thanks to our panel for their questions.

You can watch this and all Arkansas PBS debates on demand at the Arkansas PBS YouTube channel on the PBS video app and on our website.

Again, the candidates have been invited to participate in individual press conferences immediately following this broadcast.

So you can continue to watch our live stream at my r PBS's dot org slash elections or by scanning the QR code that's on your screen right now.

Thanks again to our candidates and to our panelists for participating and to you for watching Election Day November 5th.

Make your voice heard.

Major Funding for Election 2024.

Arkansas PBS Debates is provided by Civic Arkansas a Winthrop Rockefeller Institute program.

Additional funding provided by the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce