- [Announcer] Funding for election 2026 coverage is provided by the members of Prairie Public.

(upbeat music) - Good evening and welcome to tonight's Minnesota District seven US Congressional Debate.

I'm Dave Thompson.

I'll be serving as your moderator this evening.

We're very happy to have the candidates with us tonight, who are seeking to represent the people of Minnesota District 7 in the US Congress.

We have Representative Michelle Fischbach of, she's a Republican, and we have our Democratic challenger, Erik Osberg.

Our goal tonight is to provide voters with a fair opportunity to hear from each candidate.

As moderator, it is my job to remain neutral, and I will enforce the same rules and time limits for everybody.

Before the broadcast, we determine the order of opening and closing remarks, and each candidate will be given one minute for those remarks.

With that, let's begin.

Candidate Michelle Fischbach, you have the first opening remarks.

- Well, thank you very much.

And I just want to say thank you for the opportunity.

I appreciate Prairie Public, and Dave, thank you for moderating the event this evening.

And it's very meaningful to be here with you today.

I have worked hard to serve and represent the people of the 7th District, and I have worked side by side with community leaders, with people across the district, and to make sure that we are being represented with a strong voice in DC, because there are so many concerns for rural Minnesota that we need to take there, and make sure that we are continuing to push for the things that we need in rural Minnesota.

And so I have been that voice and I hope to continue to be that voice and work on those successes that we have had that we'll probably talk about during the broadcast, but making sure that we continue that work that we have been doing to represent rural Minnesota.

And I thank you again and I look forward to the opportunity to answer questions.

- And thank you.

And now let's hear from Erik Osberg.

- My name is Erik Osberg and I'm running for Congress, because I believe that we can do better.

Gratitude is a cornerstone of this campaign, and I'm grateful for this opportunity.

I'm not a career politician.

I'm a working class problem solver.

Over the last 19 months, I've been showing up in all 38 counties.

I've put on over 49,000 miles, and I've held over 300 events and I've been listening to the voters.

And what I've heard is they want change.

They're hungry for change.

We have developed a five point plan.

I'll give it to you quickly.

Number one is defend the constitution so we can restore checks and balances.

Number two is get corporate money out of politics, so we can end the corruption in DC.

Three, four, and five are fighting for our rural economies like agriculture, healthcare, and public education.

Once again, my name is Erik Osberg, and I'm running for Congress because I believe we can do better.

- And thank you very much.

Our first question goes first to Michelle Fischbach.

The US Senate has now approved a new farm bill, but the House has yet to take action on it.

The Senate's version includes allowing the year round sale of E15 ethanol blends as well as country of origin labeling for meat products.

Do you agree with those Senate changes, yes or no?

- Oh, absolutely.

And the House did pass the Farm Bill, I believe back in April.

We passed a Farm Bill and sent it over to the Senate.

Ours did not include E15, because we've sent E15, year round E15 over separately.

But certainly I support the Prop 12, I believe is what you asked about the Prop 12 language and the E15.

I worked very hard in the House to make sure that E15, year round E15 got off of the floor and was sent over there.

And actually in the Farm Bill, in both the versions, in both the House and the Senate version, part of my legislation investing in rural America to help get more capital to rural America, to the rural areas is included in both of the versions.

So absolutely, it is a priority of mine to make sure that we pass that when we get back.

- For Erik Osberg.

- I do support year round E15 and I also support country of origin labeling for meat products.

And just to be clear, this has passed the House but not the Senate, correct?

- Well, the House did, excuse me, the House, yes, passed it out and it sent it over the Senate.

The Senate passed it out of the Senate Ag Committee, and it is awaiting a vote on the floor.

- Understood.

And I also want to be clear, back in 2020, when you were debating Colin Peterson, you said the words, "It's a dead end.

If you're not negotiating with the other side to get it into federal law, it doesn't count."

And so I just want to make sure that we're using the same standard that you applied to Colin Peterson back in 2020.

Getting it out of the House doesn't necessarily make it federal law.

- No, because the Senate has to do their job, and make sure that they, and they have passed the farm bill out of committee and there's a lot of similarities.

So I guess we're just going through the process right now.

- Understood.

- So absolutely.

I mean, yes, we have to pass that, and it is a priority of mine, absolute priority of mine to make sure that we get that farm bill passed because there's important legislation included in that, and the E15 is incredibly important and we need to make sure that we get that taken care of.

- This is a follow-up question and I'm going to ask it, and I'll start with you again.

What specific policies would you pursue to improve farm profitability?

- Well, we do have the USDA... Input costs are incredibly high, and I understand that the farm economy is struggling right now, but I think we do need to look at those domestic markets and we have the USDA looking at creating more fertilizer plants in the US.

There's you know what, I can't believe it's 50 million, 500 million, can't remember the exact number, but we are moving towards that so that we can cut down some of those input costs.

But in addition to that, we need to create our domestic markets.

Yes, we look at trade.

Yes, we do those things, but continue to.

And that's why year round E15 was so incredibly important and I personally worked very, very hard to make sure and use my position on the rules committee to make sure that that bill got to the floor and that we had that vote because we worked bipartisanly to do it.

And in addition to that, I've got a bill on bio-based materials that would provide production incentives, or tax credits to make sure that we are looking at every possible kind of thing that we can do for those renewables, for those ag products to make sure we have domestic markets.

- Okay, I'll ask the same question to Erik Osberg.

What specific policy or policies would you pursue to improve farm profitability?

- The number one policy is ending the chaos and uncertainty.

Congress needs to restore their control over things like tariffs.

When I've been visiting with farmers over the past 19 months, I hear over and over again, we need to end the chaos, we need to end the uncertainty.

I was at a event in Warren, Minnesota.

It was a farmer's town hall, and the term I heard is we're playing headline roulette.

So first and foremost, we need to end the chaos, and the uncertainty and have Congress restore their constitutional authority over things like tariffs.

- Alright, the next question goes to Erik.

What should Congress do for the overall affordability issue, if anything?

- Well, I'll go back to constitutional.

I believe that many of our... A lot of the pain that we're feeling right now, whether it be at the grocery store, at the pump, but I believe a lot of our affordability issues are constitutional issues.

Again, Article one, Section eight of the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, not the executive branch.

In addition to that, war powers.

If Congress restored their authority over war, that would help at the pump as well.

So what I think Congress can do to help with affordability, is to restore their rightful place as the constitutional body to control those entities.

- Okay Michelle Fischbach, your question is the same thing.

What should Congress do for the affordability issue, if anything?

- There's no simple answer to the affordability issue.

I understand.

I share the concerns.

I know that people are feeling the pinch and inflation is going up.

I understand that, the gas prices, but there's no simple answer.

There's a lot of things going on, that are adding to the affordability.

We look at over-regulation, we look at what the Federal Reserve is going to do, and we look at taxes and we can't afford to burden families with more taxes.

We were able to do some of that, and the one big, beautiful bill is to help working class families cut their taxes.

We can't continue to do that.

We're also looking at a worker shortage, and we need to make sure that we are using those visas the best we can and legal immigration, to make sure we can fill those spots too.

But there's a lot going on, and I don't know if there is a simple answer that Congress can pass one bill to deal with the affordability.

I think what we need to do is be able to grow the economy and make sure that we have those available.

- I will offer, Erik, you have a chance to rebut if you want.

- I'm going to go back to the Constitution.

The war with Iran is a war of choice, and Representative Fischbach has had a lot of opportunities to end that and has chosen not to, and multiple votes.

And so I think these are choices that we're making.

And so while it might not be one thing, there's at least a couple of things we could do right off the bat, and that would be restore Congress's authority over tariffs, and restore Congress's authority over war.

- And Michelle Fischbach, you have the last word.

- Yeah, I would like to respond to that, because there have been several war powers bills, or resolutions on the floor, and they call for an immediate withdrawal.

And that's not safe.

That's dangerous to do things like that.

If we remember what happened in Afghanistan not that long ago, that to just say we have to have an immediate withdrawal, that's dangerous for our troops, and it's not going to necessarily make gas prices go down because certainly Iran, if we pull out, certainly Iran isn't going to just say, "Okay, we're going to open the Strait."

There's a lot going on there, and so just voting for a war powers resolution is not going to solve the affordability issue.

- Going to the next question, then we start with Michelle Fischbach.

What specific federal funding or policy changes could you pursue to help keep critical access hospitals operating in Western Minnesota?

- Well, and it is incredibly important because it is part of a strong rural community to make sure that we have healthcare available to us.

There are a few things there.

And the rural healthcare transformation fund money, the one, the billion dollars or $2 billion that are going out, that is just starting to be distributed.

And we were very involved in making sure that when Minnesota put in their application that it was done the way we needed to have it done.

And so that's going out.

But then in addition to that, we're looking at telehealth issues, making sure that we have telehealth available to us, and making sure they have the funding for that.

It's not only used in the hospitals for critical patients, but on EMS.

I was just touring a ambulance that had that available to them so we can get that kind of care.

But in addition to that, clinics and specialists that we may want to be able to see, and so that we can have that available to us in rural areas.

And then also.

Oh, okay.

You cut me off.

- No, it is time, but we go to the same question to John Osberg.

Erik Osberg, I'm sorry.

- [Erik] That's alright.

- Okay, what specific federal funding or policy changes would you pursue to help keep critical access hospitals operating in Western Minnesota?

- I would fight to restore ACA subsidies.

I would fight to restore Medicare Part D. I would fight to restore the eligibility cuts in Medicaid, and I would fight to restore national funding in healthcare and medical research.

After H.R.1 was passed, I talked with a lot of rural healthcare executives, and I didn't hear one of them that was excited about what was coming down the pipe.

And so again, if we can get back to where we were, I think that would be a good start to making sure that we all in rural places have access to critical care.

- Michelle Fischbach, do you have a rebuttal?

- I just would like to add the one thing that I was going or the two things that I was going to add is the 340B drug program that so many of our small hospitals take advantage of, and we need to make sure that we preserve that.

I know there's been some issues with larger hospitals, but we need to keep that in our small rural hospitals, and make sure they have that program available to them.

The other issue is over-regulation.

You take a look at nursing homes and they've been overregulated.

Some of them are still dealing with COVID era regulations, and so we need to address that to make sure that we're able to keep those nursing homes here in rural areas.

I did want to just address the ACA subsidies, because the subsidies that we're talking about that have been of a concern were COVID era subsidies.

And the Democrats in the Inflation Reduction Act were the one that put the expiration date on them.

And so it wasn't that the House Republicans voted to cut them, they expired.

That was part of the Democrat passed Inflation Reduction Act, and those are only COVID era subsidies.

- Okay, Erik Osberg, your final word of this.

- My final word is I've met with nursing homes as well.

And what we're experiencing right now is a sledgehammer effect, if that's the word that they used.

It feels like there's a sledgehammer coming down on them right now.

There's a lot of really good providers out there, that are doing it right.

And so this cut and gut model that has been implemented, the folks that I've talked with within the industry say it feels like a sledgehammer.

- Alright, next question goes to you, Erik Osberg.

Data centers and artificial intelligence have become very hot issues.

Should Congress step in with regulations?

- I believe there should be strict regulations on data centers.

I have grave concerns about data centers.

This campaign has maintained for a very, very long time that we need to put the planet over profit.

And as far as AI is concerned, there's danger there too.

If we put too much reliance on a utility that an adversary could manipulate, that doesn't help us.

And so again, on this campaign, what I've said is I believe in authentic intelligence more than I believe in artificial intelligence.

- To Michelle Fischbach, the same question.

Data centers, artificial intelligence have become hot issues.

Should Congress step in with regulations?

- Well, with the AI, there's obviously that we need to make sure there are guardrails on the AI.

It can't be a knee-jerk reaction though.

We need to make sure that we understand it, we do it properly.

We make sure that there are guardrails, but also provide some flexibility that things could be changed as time goes on because AI is continually changing as technology is.

But like I said, can't be knee jerk, but certainly we need to do that.

I know that there's been a lot of legislation introduced, but it certainly needs to boil down to that it needs to protect people.

And then for data centers, what that needs to be done is on the local level.

The local folks need to decide if they want a data center and do the negotiations.

There was a legislation just before we left in September, I believe it was, that we voted on that would require those data centers to pay for any upgrades to the grid or to the electrical supplies that they needed.

And I supported that, but I do think that what Becker County wants to do, what Clay County wants to do in Minnesota, is much different than what Loudoun County in Virginia needs.

And so we shouldn't be micromanaging at the federal level.

- Okay.

Erik Osberg, you have a shot.

- I too believe in local solutions to local problems.

And from the federal level, I don't want to paint a broad brush, but we need to be realistic about what local, small, rural communities can handle, just from an administrative standpoint.

If you've got a large mega corp coming in, something might slip through the cracks.

And so Representative Fischbach had mentioned guardrails.

The guardrails have been gone for a long time, and so we need strict policy that helps these rural communities out as they're dealing with this wild, wild west era here in Western Minnesota.

- Michelle Fischbach, if you'd like to rebut.

- Well, I would just like to see the local communities deal with it because then folks can have local input and those local elected officials can handle things.

- Okay, our next question, we start with you and Michelle Fischbach.

What role should Congress play in authorizing military action?

Should Congress have more oversight over those decisions?

- Well, certainly we need to play our role in military actions.

Right now with Iran going on, and I mentioned the War Powers Act, but we need to certainly be involved and make sure that we understand what is going on there.

But if you take a look at Iran, we do not want them to have a nuclear weapon, plain and simple.

I mean, I think most of us remember the fall of Iran, and what was going on, and this is a country that the people in the streets chant death to America.

And so to make sure, we have to make sure that they do not have nuclear weapons.

- Erik Osberg, same question.

What role should Congress play in authorizing military action?

Should Congress have more oversight over those decisions?

- I believe Congress should have their constitutional oversight, which is the act of war.

And I would remind Representative Fischbach that before we chose to attack Iran, we had an agreement, we had sanctions, we had inspectors, and we had an open Strait of Hormuz.

And so again, we were sold on this operation, excursion.

Now it's become a war, and so Congress has had many opportunities to step up.

Of course, I believe we need to protect our brave soldiers at all costs, but we got to figure out a way out of these forever wars.

- Michelle Fischbach, will you have a rebuttal?

- It will, and I appreciate that we certainly need to have our oversight, but right now, if you were looking at before the military action in Iran, they were enriching uranium and we need to make sure that a terrorist country like Iran does not have nuclear weapons.

- And Erik Osberg, you have a rebuttal?

- I'll go back to what I said.

We had sanctions, we had inspectors, we had an agreement, and it's seven months now, and we're at war.

- Alright, the next question goes to Erik Osberg.

Social security continues to be an issue along with Medicare.

What would you propose to keep both solvent?

- Social security is vital to a lot of people in Western Minnesota, and if we don't do anything, according to the numbers I've seen by the year 2032, benefits will be cut by as much as 25%.

And so there's a few solutions out there.

One of them is called the Social Security Expansion Act.

And what's happening right now is if you make over $184,000, you don't pay FICA taxes on that.

And so I would support removing the cap, and not only does it keep it solvent, it expands it.

We could expand benefits now.

So my solution to the social security issue is remove the cap.

- Same question then to Michelle Fischbach.

Social security continues to be an issue along with Medicare.

What would you propose to keep both solvent?

- Well, and it is absolutely vital to people in the 7th District and across the country, and we need to make sure the first thing that we do when we are looking at reforms and changing that, because Erik is right, in 2032, we do run into it being insolvent and we need to make sure that doesn't happen.

But the first thing that we need to make sure that people understand is we are not going to cut current recipients.

We are not going to cut, because that is always the scare tactic, that anytime that someone makes a movement towards making reforms in social security, that someone to the other side yells that they're going to cut your benefits.

We need to look at a variety of things, and we already are.

The social security committee of the Ways and Means Committee is already looking at those things.

We're talking about investments.

We are talking about retirement age.

We are talking about a lot of different things, and how we would phase those in to make them work.

But I want to reiterate that we... And we can't do another tax increase.

I mean, we can't increase that tax on people, but make sure that we keep those benefits as they stand right now.

- Erik, do you have a rebuttal?

- I appreciate that they're looking at things, but we need action.

We're only six years away.

And so I had heard Representative Fischbach mention perhaps reexamining, and correct me if I misheard, but retirement ages.

Again, our social security system would work if we removed the cap.

And I do want to add one final note.

I would strongly oppose privatizing social security, and so I just want to make sure that that's on the record.

- Okay, and Michelle, do you have anything you'd like to say?

- I would just like to add absolutely.

When I mentioned a few of the things, we're looking at everything because it's not going to be one thing, one simple answer.

We are going to have to do a combination of things to make sure that we preserve those benefits for current retirees, but in addition to that, preserve the social security program for the people that have been paying into it.

So there is going to have to be.

So certainly the cap, the removing the cap is certainly in the mix, but we are looking at a lot of solutions to that to make sure that we can deal with it by 2032.

- Okay, the next question is for Michelle Fischbach first.

How would you balance border security with creating a workable legal immigration system?

And how would you ensure farmers and agribusinesses continue to have access to workers they need?

- Well, and right now we have secured the borders, and that is something that people were asking for beforehand and we are dealing with that.

But I think the most important part of making sure that ag, and I've been working with the leaders in ag, is reforming those visa programs.

I'm on a bill with Chairman Thompson, that would reform the visa programs, the agricultural worker visa program, and moving it towards not removing the seasonality of it and removing some of that.

And I think now that we have secured the borders, it is our time to look at those visa programs, and legal immigration, and making sure that we can do things that way.

But I think visa reform is an important part of making sure that we can provide those workers.

- Okay Erik Osberg, you get the same question.

How would you balance border security with creating a workable legal immigration system, and how would you ensure farmers and agribusinesses continue to have access to workers they need?

- It comes as news to me that the border has been completely secured and we can call that job done.

First of all, we don't need open borders.

That's not what I'm advocating for, but we need a clear and concise path to citizenship.

There is a backlog of people who are waiting, and the way that we do this is we have to invest in it.

We have to invest in the structure.

We have to invest in the people.

There's roughly 700,000 people that are still waiting to be processed.

So I also believe that our immigration issues are workforce issues.

They're also humanitarian issues.

So we do need a secure border.

We don't need an open border, but we need to figure out a clear and concise earned path to citizenship.

- Michelle Fischbach, would you like time to rebut?

- Well, I would just reiterate.

I think that important too is one of the things that I have been working with the ag community on is that visa reform, and I think that is what we can move forward now.

- And Erik, you could have the last word on this.

- I'm good.

- Okay.

Okay.

The next question is for you then first, Erik.

Should Congress get involved in making sure elections are fair, secure, and accessible to voters?

If so, how?

- Our democracy is built on fair, and free elections.

The constitution is pretty clear that the states are the ones that operate our elections.

Congress is allowed to step in when necessary, but I believe that what we need to be doing is we need to be making sure that every eligible citizen has the ability to vote.

I want to make sure that we're promoting voting, not restricting it.

- For Michelle Fischbach, same answer.

Should Congress get involved in making sure elections are fair, secure, and accessible to voters?

If so, how?

- Well, and I would agree that elections should be handled on the state level, but given that, I do support the SAVE Act, which would require voter ID, and it would limit voting to citizens, to citizens of the US.

We just in Minnesota, we just had 10 people indicted for non-citizens voting, and so we have to be very careful of that.

It's not just anecdotal anymore.

We have indictments.

And so I want to make sure that it is... And that's how we do it, is through voter ID, is that's how we make sure that the people that are supposed to be voting are voting.

- Erik Osberg, would you like a rebuttal?

- I would, indictments aren't convictions, and what we've been experiencing in this country is an erosion in confidence in our election system.

And this started a while ago.

The first vote that Representative Fischbach took, she voted to not certify the electoral votes of Arizona and Pennsylvania.

And my question would be what evidence was there, that those votes shouldn't have been certified?

It's not what we know, it's what we can prove.

And so again, this erosion of confidence in our free and fair elections, which are secure, if you look at the data, our elections are secure.

The erosion started a long time ago, and I think we need to stop trying to make it into a bigger issue than it is.

- Michelle Fischbach, if you'd like to respond.

- Well, thank you very much.

And I think the issue with Arizona and Pennsylvania was that we wanted the investigation so that we could take a look at if, and what was going on with those two states and their votes.

And so it's not that... And that certainly would not have... Those two votes and their electoral numbers would not have undone the election.

So there's a lot of drama that has been added to that vote over the years, but certainly I think that it only made sense to actually have an investigation and take a look at those two if there were concerns with voting there.

- All right, Michelle Fischbach, the next question starts with you.

What legislation would you support to help attract and retain manufacturing jobs in Western Minnesota?

- Oh, well, thank you very much because that is an incredibly important part of, and we have various legislation that passed in not only the one big beautiful bill, but in some of the reconciliation with tax incentives and things like that to make sure that we are encouraging those manufacturing, and domestic production of those things.

And so there's a variety of programs going on right now to encourage that and make sure that we do that.

- Erik Osberg, same question.

What legislation would you support to help attract and retain manufacturing jobs in Western Minnesota?

- I believe the best way to attract and maintain manufacturing jobs is to train the future workforce.

There's a lot of good two-year programs, trade school programs.

Through my work, I work in workforce recruitment and I know what our workforce shortage situations are.

And so the best way to attract the jobs is to make sure that we have a trained, skilled workforce that's ready to do the jobs.

And there you go.

- Our next question then goes to Erik Osberg first.

Name one policy on which you disagree with your party's , and could you vote against your party?

- I don't know that this is necessarily a policy, but it's more of an issue.

When it comes to firearms, I'm a constitutionalist.

And so when it comes to firearms, I sound like a Republican sometimes.

And I believe as a constitutionalist, I believe in all of it, not just parts of it.

And so there would be times where I might vote.

I absolutely would, first of all, I absolutely would vote against my party if I didn't think it was in the best interest of the district.

If I got to do as the representative, I got to do what's in the best interest of the entire district, whether people voted for me or not.

But one issue that I might sound different on from my party is firearms.

- To Michelle Fischbach, name one policy in which you disagree with your party's leadership and could you vote against your party?

- Well, and I have a great example of it because of E15, because if you take a look at the vote on the House floor, party leadership did not necessarily support that.

And we had to put together a bipartisan group, but it was critical to the 7th District.

It's critical to the ag economy.

And so I did everything I could to make sure that it got to the floor and passed.

And party leadership did not support that.

And there were a lot of Republican no votes from some of the House Republicans, but certainly that is something, and making sure that those rural issues are pushed forward.

- For Michelle Fischbach, this next question goes first to you.

Would you continue US involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict as well as US involvement in the Middle East?

- Well, I certainly think yes, we need to be involved in the Middle East.

And we have done things for Ukraine, and in the very beginning I voted for humanitarian aid for Ukraine, but I do think that we need to take a step back and also make sure that what we are doing, we have transparency and we have the information we need on where our dollars are going.

- Erik Osberg, how do you feel about US involvement in the Russia-Ukraine conflict as well as US involvement in the Middle East?

- I view Ukraine as an ally and we absolutely positively need to stand with our allies, especially when they're faced with the aggression that Putin has been using against them.

Again, as far as the Middle East goes, we need to stand with our allies.

What I've experienced with our situation with Ukraine, and with Russia is it seems many times like we're leaving our allies out to hang out to dry.

And so I strongly believe Ukraine is an ally of ours and we need to stand with them, against the aggression of Putin.

- Michelle Fischbach, would you like to rebut?

- Well, certainly.

And as we talk about Ukraine being an ally, and making sure we stand with them, we've also got to remember Israel is one of our only allies in the Middle East, and we need to stand with them too.

- And Erik, would you like rebuttal?

- Sure, I agree that Israel can be an ally, but what we need to differentiate from is, again, acts of aggression by Netanyahu.

If there's an act of aggression, that doesn't mean we have to stand idly by, and let that go where they want to take it.

So we need to stand with our allies, but we need to be careful.

- Next question, we'll start with Erik.

What would you do to make higher education more affordable?

Could there be any changes, for example, to federal student loans?

- There should absolutely be changes to federal student loans.

Number one, what we could do is we could cap interest rates to prevent predatory lending.

If we just capped interest rates on federal student loans at 5%, that would help.

I believe that I've tried to do most everything right in my life.

I've made a lot of decisions, that I feel like are good for society.

And at some point I had to refinance my house just to pay off my student loans.

And I was fortunate to be in that situation.

The other thing that our federal government can do, and I mentioned the trades, we can develop two-year pathways to those skilled labor.

So yes, I do believe that there is some reform we could do with funding for higher education.

- Michelle Fischbach, the same question.

What would you do to try to make higher education more affordable?

Would you make changes to federal student loans?

- And I did just want to address at the very end of the last question, because we talked about acts of aggression, and I believe October 7th, against Israel was an act of aggression.

But the question now is on higher ed, and I appreciate that.

And absolutely, we can reform the federal student loan program.

It's out of control and people are taking out loans, everything that's offered to them.

And so we need to make sure that we address that.

Paying them off is not the answer, but certainly making them more reasonable is something that we can look at.

And really encouraging two-year schools, encouraging students to take a look at those.

Because you look at the Minsky system in Minnesota, and you can go to a two-year school and then transfer those credits to another, to a four-year university.

And there's a pathway there to make sure that we're getting the best value for our dollar.

And so I think that we need to make sure that people understand that those two-year schools are out there and they're important.

- Okay so would Erik, would you like to rebut?

- Nope.

- Okay.

Let's go to the next question, and this would go to Michelle Fischbach.

What should Congress do if a president of either party exceeds their constitutional authority?

- Well, I guess if there was something specific you were talking about, but I know that in many... I mean, obviously if there was something egregious, we certainly would need to address it in Congress, whether that be through legislation or resolution, or whatever the case may be.

But I think so many of the times when that has been in question right now, there have been court cases.

So that seems to be where the opposition is taking it right now.

- Erik Osberg, same question.

What should Congress do if president of either party exceeds their constitutional authority?

- Congress takes an oath to the Constitution, not to a party, and not to a president.

Every vote that Congress takes should be based on the constitutionality.

I don't believe it needs to end up in the court system.

Once again, there's been multiple votes on things like tariffs.

There's been multiple votes on war resolutions, and Congress could simply vote how the Constitution tells them to, and that would be what they should do regardless of which party the President is from.

Again, Congress takes an oath to the Constitution, not a president, not a party.

The oath is to the people.

- Michelle Fischbach, would you like to respond?

- [Michelle] No, that's fine.

Thank you.

- Alright.

The next question then goes to Erik.

And this is going to ask you to kind of think a little outside the box maybe.

Name one measurable outcome you intend to achieve in your term in Congress, and how should voters judge your progress?

- I might have a couple of measurable outcomes.

As your congressperson, I believe the first step would be building a team of professionals so that people in Western Minnesota feel like there's not just one person representing them in Washington, there's a team of dedicated professionals.

After that, we've created a formula on this campaign.

I believe that accessibility, plus responsiveness, creates accountability.

So those are the formulas that I would use.

So if I remain accessible, and I remain responsive, that's where the accountability comes in.

- And for Michelle?

- Well, thank you very much for the question.

And I will just say, you know what?

We have built so many relationships across the district, and I think that's an incredibly important thing so that we can be talking to those folks.

And to say there would be a measurable outcome is difficult because you don't know what issues we're going to be facing in the future.

But I will say we have built an incredibly district team and we do mobile office hours.

They are out and about and doing the outreach we need to so that they understand that there is a connection to the office.

But I think that measurable outcomes is maybe that I represent the values, and the issues that are of concern to the 7th District.

- We're going to start with Michelle Fischbach on this one.

What opportunities will constituents have to question you directly, for example, in town halls or public meetings?

- Well, we've done over 170 visits with businesses and hospitals, and groups around the district in the last 18 months, and we'll continue that.

And in the same time period, traveling back and forth from DC and being there to vote and making sure that I'm doing the job that I was elected to do in Washington DC.

But we are certainly out and about.

We've done, I believe it is six teletown halls from DC, where we make sure that we've reached over 50,000 people with those teletown halls.

And so we continue to reach out.

And then we obviously with my staff doing mobile office hours, constituents are able to sit down with them and ask them about what's going on in DC and have questions if they have them or ask for help with constituent issues.

But I think that we have been out and about there, and it's a balance when we're in DC three weeks out of a month.

- To Erik Osberg, same question.

What opportunities would constituents have to question you directly in town halls or in public meetings?

- I believe we've done an admirable job of creating these opportunities.

I've mentioned we've done over 330 events.

I too have balance I need to seek.

I have a full-time job, and I've been doing this as a volunteer.

We're going to have opportunities coming up.

One of the things that we created, we call them fish fry town halls.

I'm an angler at heart, and there's something about breaking bread with your neighbors and creating community.

And so there's no more Minnesota way to do it, in my opinion, than at a fish fry.

And so we've done 30 fish fry town halls already.

We've only got eight to go, so it looks like we might make it, but there's eight left between now and election day.

And so if somebody wants to meet me, and I open the floor up, anybody all are welcome regardless of political affiliation at those events.

We don't screen at the door, and I take every question that gets asked of me.

- Alright, we have this question and I'm going to start with Erik Osberg.

And this goes back to some of the discussion we had earlier, but should Congress try to reassert its power of the purse over federal spending, and if so, how?

- So the answer is yes.

They should reestablish the power of the purse.

Article one, section eight of the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, not the executive branch.

There's multiple ways they can do it.

They could regain their authority over tariffs.

The other thing that I believe Congress needs to get serious about is our national debt.

We're $40 trillion in debt as a nation, and I haven't heard much about that lately.

I hear about spending and I hear we got to cut spending, but I don't hear people talking about how we're going to handle our debt.

So yeah, Congress, I believe, should get their financial house in order fast.

- Okay for Michelle, the same question.

Should Congress try to reassert its power of the purse over federal spending?

And if so, how?

- Well, and I think we already have started that process.

The House Republicans have been looking into those executive agencies and trying to weed out the wasteful spending and the programs that are unnecessary and taking a look at it.

That's why we did a rescissions package, and we were looking at USAID and some of those programs and making sure that we're weeding out that wasteful spending.

In addition to that, the House Republicans passed 12 appropriations bills.

That hasn't been done since 1997.

That appropriations process is incredibly important.

And most of those bills were cuts from the previous year.

So we did reduce spending and we are concerned about the debt that we are facing.

We can't tax our way out of it, so we are absolutely going to be having to take a look and making cuts.

But I think those are a couple of important things that we're already looking at those things and we got back to the appropriations process as it's supposed to be.

- Erik, would you like rebuttal?

- I would.

We can't cut our way out of it either.

$40 trillion.

There's not that much fat to trim.

And so when I hear things like USAID referred to fluently, USAID not only created a market for our farmers, it fed the world.

And so we can't cut our way out of this debt.

It has to be a combination.

We have to figure out strategic spending cuts, that are humane and done with care, done with a scalpel rather than a chainsaw.

And we have to look at ways.

We have a collections problem as much as we have a spending problem.

We have to look at both sides of the balance sheet.

- Michelle Fischbach, would you like to rebut?

- Well, and as we talk a lot about being a constitutionalist and adhering to the constitution, we should get back to what spending, what the real purpose or what the real things that government should be working on, we should get back to that.

And that would certainly help our spending issues.

- Alright, this question is from Michelle Fischbach again, but it goes back to the question of the fact that the budget is not balanced.

What steps does Congress need to do to balance the budget?

- Oh, well, we certainly need to be looking at all of those kinds of things that are going on.

Like I mentioned, with the House Republicans taking a look at those agencies and what we're spending money on and what we're doing.

And when I was in the state legislature, I carried the balanced budget bill that would've required us to look at each of those departments every year.

And I believe we need to do more examination of what the government is spending, what they're spending it on, and make sure that those programs don't just get put into the base budget and continue into eternity and that we actually examine what we're spending money on each year.

And I think that's how there's a combination of things to make sure that we can balance that budget, and that is absolutely one of them is getting a handle on what we're spending money on and if we should be.

- Erik Osberg, same question.

What do you do to balance the budget?

- Number one is I would stop funding vanity projects in Washington DC.

Number two, I would stop spending money on wars of choice.

And number three, we could close loopholes so mega corporations are paying taxes in America.

If a corporation, a mega corporation makes money in America, they should be paying taxes in America.

- Would you like a rebuttal?

- Well, I just want to mention, I would appreciate understanding which loopholes, because in the Inflation Reduction Act, they created a huge loophole for a tax credit for those corporations or millionaires purchasing electric vehicles.

And that loophole, that's a huge loophole and they're getting tax credits on that.

So we need to be careful when we're always talking, making accusations about loopholes and funding billionaires because there's certainly a lot of it that was done on the other side in the name of green energy.

- Anything else?

- Sure.

There's a difference between a corporate tax rate, and an effective tax rate.

And the largest of the large corporations aren't paying their fair share.

And so I don't know that tax credits for green energy, or tax credits for electric vehicles is the real problem here.

We need to make sure that our corporate tax rate and their effective tax rate line up.

- Alright, this question, we start with Erik on this one, and it goes back a little bit to what we talked about before, but really what is your position on tariffs?

- My position, if I haven't explained it correctly, Article one, Section eight of the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, not the executive branch.

And I believe that the Supreme Court agrees with that.

They've issued $160 billion refund, and the not so good news is that refund doesn't go to people.

It goes to corporations.

And so where I think we're at with tariffs is Congress needs to stand up and say, "No, we're not going to let one person make arbitrary and high-handed decisions that affect the American people on a daily basis, whether it be at the grocery store or at the gas pump."

- Michelle Fischbach.

- Well, thank you very much.

And I certainly, nobody likes tariffs, I mean, obviously.

And there are some that are of great concern, but they're also, they were valuable, and they were valuable in bringing people to the table.

And yes, the Supreme Court has dealt with some of the tariffs now, and actually Congress has advocated and talked to the White House and the administration to deal with some of the more specific, more egregious ones.

I don't support putting tariffs on things, but I certainly will understand that we need to make sure that we have free and fair trade, and free and fair trade, not only free, but fair in the sense that if countries are heavily subsidizing ag products so that they can ship it over here cheaper, we need to make sure that we level those playing fields.

We need to make sure that we are doing those things so that our folks have a fair shake at it.

And so there's certainly obviously much has been made about the tariffs and nobody loves them, but there are some things that we can do with them to make it fair.

- Erik Osberg, do you have a rebuttal?

- I do.

I understand the usage of tariffs or duties to balance the playing field.

Again, it can't be high-handed and arbitrary.

We don't need one person or one very, very small group of people making those types of decisions.

I understand using them for negotiation tactics, but we don't want power centralized.

We want power diversified.

- And Michelle Fischbach, if you have- - [Michelle] Oh, no thank you.

- Okay.

Alright.

And this goes back to another discussion we had, but Michelle Fischbach, what federal gun laws, if any, would you change and how would you balance public safety with Second Amendment rights?

- Well, and I'm endorsed by the NRA, and I support the Second Amendment.

And trying to regulate guns at the federal level is just not something I want to see.

And I know that there have been a lot of issues with a lot of the gun legislation that has been proposed in the recent past.

And so right now, there's nothing that I see that I would be able to support.

- For Erik Osberg.

- Federal gun laws that I would change, right now I don't have any, but I believe, again, as a constitutionalist, I believe in the Second Amendment.

I am a gun owner myself, but what I've often said is my friends on the other side of the aisle, when we have these conversations, like to focus on the we shall not be infringed, that part of the Second Amendment.

And I like to point out the words well-regulated are in there as well.

And so I do believe that as a society, we need to have serious conversations.

I believe in this country we have a violence problem in addition to a gun violence problem.

We need to have serious conversations and we need to be willing to do so.

- Would you like to rebut?

- No, thank you.

- Have we come to the end of it?

- We have.

- Okay.

Very quickly, kind of like a lightning round, so to speak, what needs to happen in your campaigns for you to win in November?

And I'll start with Michelle Fischbach.

- Well, I don't know how lightning lightning is, but we are certainly going to continue to be out there talking to folks.

There's about, what, two and a half weeks left, and I think that we have been, for the past six years, we've been really working hard to make sure that we have those relationships, and we're going to continue that and see it till the end.

- Okay Erik, same question to you.

- It's what I've been asking people from day one.

People need to keep showing up.

They need to keep showing out.

And what I've also been asking lately is people need to become multipliers.

Whether they're willing to knock on a door, or make a phone call, I get that that might not be where you're at, but if you could just tell 10 people in your life that they have a choice this November, and it's a legitimate choice.

And so what needs to happen is we just need to keep building name recognition and have face-to-face conversations with as many people as humanly possible.

- Very good.

Thank you.

And now it is time for closing statements.

We start with Erik Osberg first.

- I started with gratitude and I'll end with gratitude.

I just want to say thank you.

This has been a heck of a journey, 19 months, 49,000 miles.

I've literally talked with over 10,000 people face-to-face.

I've shook hands and I've looked into people's eyes.

And I just want to say thank you to everyone who's joined the movement along the way.

If you'd have told me that this is the position we'd be in right now, I like our chances.

We're in a good spot.

So I started with gratitude.

I want to end with gratitude.

- Michelle Fischbach.

- Well, and I would first like to say thank you so much.

Thank you for the opportunity to have the forum this evening.

And I've worked very hard to represent the 7th District, to be a strong voice for the 7th District and its concerns.

And I've built the relationships both in DC, but more importantly in the district so that I work with those leaders, that I work with the ag leaders, work with law enforcement, work with the community leaders.

And I've been working hard in DC on tax relief, on E15, on those ag issues that are so important and on the rural economies and on healthcare, and I want to continue to do that.

And I think that people have seen the hard work and the things that we've delivered, like the infrastructure money for those small cities we've been able to deliver.

And so I've been humbled and honored to serve the 7th District, and I ask for your vote on November 3rd.

- Thank you very much.

This concludes our Minnesota's District 7 US congressional debate for tonight.

I'd like to thank both candidates for being here and participating.

I encourage everyone to get out and vote on November 3rd, or participate in early voting.

It's already underway.

For Prairie Public, I'm Dave Thompson.

Thank you for watching, and have a great rest of your evening.

(upbeat music) - [Announcer] Funding for election 2026 coverage is provided by the members of Prairie Public.