- [Announcer] Funding for election 2022 coverage is provided in part by AARP.

A non-profit nonpartisan membership association 83,000 strong in North Dakota.

Find information on how to make your voice heard in the 2022 election at aarp.org/ndvotes.

And by the members of Prairie Public.

(upbeat music) - Hello, I'm Matt Olien, Welcome to Prairie Public and AARP North Dakota's coverage of Election 2022.

Tonight, the debate for Minnesota's seventh district congressional seat.

My guests are Republican representative, Michelle Fischbach; Legal Marijuana Now party candidate, Travis Johnson; and Democrat, Jill Abahsain.

Each candidate will have a one minute opening statement and one minute closing statement.

In between, they will debate and discuss topics selected by myself and our co-sponsor, AARP.

Based on a drawing out of a hat, Jill Abahsain goes first on opening statement.

Jill.

- Thank you.

I'm Jill Abahsain.

I'm from Sauk Center Minnesota, rural Minnesota.

I'm a educator and a writer.

I spent 25 years working and living in the Middle East.

I understand what control of a woman means, I understand why it is done, I understand why it is perpetuated.

I understand what happens when religious opinion becomes law, how it begins, why it is maintained, and it has begun.

I am running now to represent the people of congressional district seven.

I believe we've been underserved for decades.

We do not have the services that we need, we are underserved in education, we are underserved in rural healthcare access.

I'm running also to fight the attack on privacy that has begun, and our attack on democracy from election deniers, insurrection advocates, that caused doubt in our democratic process, which is taken from the first pages- - That's one minute.

Michelle Fischbach, your one minute.

Michelle Fischbach, one minute opening statement.

- Well, thank you so much.

And first, I'd like to thank the AARP, and Prairie Public, and to Matt for putting together this evening's forum.

You know, I've been proud to serve the seventh district for the last two years, and I've been traveling across the district and meeting many people.

And it has been certainly a wonderful opportunity and just a enjoyable time to meet all of those people, and to really serve the people of the Seventh District in Washington DC.

And I look forward to this evening's discussion.

Thank you.

- Travis Johnson, one minute opening statement.

- My name is Travis Bull Johnson.

I'm a constitutional conservative who's running on a small government leave you alone type of platform, kind of like the GOP used to be.

I'm real excited to be here tonight.

I mean, it seems like me and Matt's been working with this for months trying to set this whole thing up.

I'm really disappointed that Michelle couldn't find it in time in her schedule to be here before one November, after a good portion of our constituents have already voted through mail in balloting.

But then again, I also understand, considering her voting record on veterans issues and her Liz Cheney style foreign policy, I'd probably be a little nervous about getting on stage with a 20 year army vet that wants to keep the troops at home as well.

Our two party system has failed us.

The parties are just constantly fighting each other, tearing the country apart.

They don't care what happens to me, you, and everyday Americans as long as at the end of the battle, their party is standing on top of the ashes.

We can't do that.

I can't stand for that.

I finally had to tell myself, hey, if not me, who?

If not now, when?

We gotta do something now.

- We'll continue throughout this.

Yes, I have to stop you at one minute.

First topic is inflation.

President Biden's Inflation Reduction Bill recently passed, but it remains stubbornly high.

It's affecting consumers, the stock market as well.

What can someone, my question is, and the debate topic is, what can someone in Congress do about inflation if anything?

How do we get in this position and if elected, what would you do to try to ease inflation?

Michelle Fischbach, you start us off on this topic.

- Well, thank you.

And the first thing we really need to do is stop the out of control spending in Washington DC.

You know, we have just been continuing to spend and spend and spend, and obviously the Inflation Reduction Act had very little to do with inflation.

It had $400 billion worth of Green New Deal initiatives that had little to do with reducing inflation.

And so, number one, like I said, we need to reduce inflation, or excuse me, reduce spending in Washington, but we also need to make sure that we are taking a look at government regulations.

And those are getting in the way of supply chain issues, those are getting in the way of our people doing their job and making sure that things are going well in the economy.

And so I would say reducing those regulations and making sure that we're reducing spending.

- Travis Johnson response.

- Hey, I would completely agree.

I mean, we need to reduce federal spending.

Okay, just to throw some numbers out at you, 2020 under the Trump presidency, we spent $4.2 trillion in debt, okay?

That's a huge amount of money.

Since Joe Biden's taken over the first year, he spent $1.5 trillion in debt.

But more than that, they put over $3 trillion into the economy that was unaccounted for.

That was basically free printed money.

I mean, between those two, I mean, that's seven to $8 trillion.

Well, guess what?

There's only $18 trillion in circulation.

What happens with supply and demand when you have a big increase in the supply of money?

It devalues our dollars.

That's the cause for inflation.

We need to take some money out of the system.

And we do that primarily, again, one of my primary issues is cutting government's wasteful government spending.

Thank you.

- Jill Abahsain, response.

- To speak about inflation for Americans is red herring.

It is a global issue right now.

Every country in the world is suffering.

America is in about in the middle, and we maintain.

It is due to supply chain issues, global issues.

The Ukraine War has impact on it, and price gouging from corporates for extreme record profits that have been on, profit taking has been going on.

This is financial elite greed.

Much of this is due to the monopolies practices of a handful of dominant corporations.

We have Inflation Reduction Act at least as a plan.

It's a program and it can be implemented and if implemented correctly, it will help adjust our own American inflation issues.

- Okay, Michelle Fischbach, you wanna respond again?

- You know, continuing on with the Inflation Reduction Act, you know, I don't see how it is going to deal with inflation.

You know, I mentioned earlier the $400 billion worth of Green New Deal initiatives that do nothing for the people in the seventh district.

You know, we have 87,000 more IRS agents that are going I believe it doubles the size of the IRS.

That's not going to help inflation.

You know, and it is a serious issue that the people of the United States and to the seventh district.

When we're looking at increased input costs for farmers, the cost of fertilizers going up, we really do need to make sure that we are addressing it at the federal level.

- Travis Johnson response.

- And again, I agree we do need to address at the federal level.

I question whether the Republican Party platform or budget for 2023 is the right example on that, especially with here in the seventh district.

I mean, part of that 2023 budget that the Republican Study Committee did, I mean, they're increasing...

They're trying to eliminate the sugar program.

They're trying to make it harder for veterans to be able to claim disability.

I mean, they're trying to increase the crop insurance prices for our farmers by an additional 30%.

Going from 30% to 40, excuse me, to 60%.

That's gonna take a lot of small farmers who just aren't gonna be able to force crop insurance anymore.

So I'm just not sure the Republicans should be trusted to handle this.

- Jill, you're saying last word on this, then we'll move on to topic number two.

- I would just say, like to repeat that it is price gouging by corporate entities.

We cannot force them.

We are not a socialist country where we can ask the corporations or tell them to quit doing that.

This is what we suffer from it.

We need to have more antitrust legislation, and that is something that Washington can do.

But as it stands today, it is corporate greed.

It is something that we need to stand up against, and we have programs that are in the work to stop that from happening.

- [Michelle] Can I just meet that?

- Yep, you can jump in again.

- I just wanted to clarify.

I think the Republican Study Committee that Bull is referring to is a separate entity.

It is not the Republican conference, and so that is a group of folks who got together and put together a separate proposal.

It's not the Republican conference proposal.

- [Travis] Now are you one of the committee?

- I am part of that committee, but I did not sign on to the document that they are talking about.

- I do wanna make a clarification as well is right now farmers pay 40% of their insurance.

They're expected to go up to 70%.

- And Jill Abahsain, you get the last word.

- And we are speaking about the Farm Bill.

- [Travis] Yes.

- And yes, we cannot allow the Farm Bill to expire in 2023, where the Republican Study Committee wishes it to expire and change the dynamics of it, which as Bull says, would take down corporate protection for farmers.

- And we are gonna get more into farm policy in this debate.

It's coming, don't worry about it.

But that's a good start.

Topic two, let's talk about the Dobbs Supreme Court decision that reversed Roe V. Wade, and essentially sent the issue back to the states.

In Minnesota it remains legal, but I want to hear how each of you feel about the Dobbs decision and if elected, what would each of you advocate, if anything, at the federal level?

Travis Johnson, you start this time.

- Hey, I love the Dobbs decision.

I believe that was a right decision.

I don't believe the federal government has a role to play in this.

As far as what would I would do, if any effort was made to codify Roe...

I mean, abortion on the federal level, I would vote against it.

At the same time, if any effort was made to ban it on a federal level, I would vote against it.

I just don't feel that the federal government has that authority.

I would do everything I could to limit federal dollars from being used for abortion with the exceptions of rape, incest, or the life of the mother, and then it would be only in cases where the patient is the responsibility of the United States government, such as military, such as retirees, such as various other people who count on the United States government for their insurance.

- Jill Abahsain, response.

- I am incensed and the constituents that I speak to, the women that I speak to are up in arms that this is even a political issue.

The Supreme Court can do what it did.

We have to deal with that, but it should not ever be a woman's tragedy.

A family's tragedy should not be something that is debated by politicians.

This is wrong.

It's a personal medical decision.

They are removing medical procedures from half of the population, the ability to have full medical care.

And this is not something that politicians, Democrats, middle, or Republicans should have.

It's a non-issue.

I cannot speak to it right now.

I would support that women have the right to speak to their doctor and have whatever medical procedure they wish to have.

Be it a tonsillectomy, or a selective abortion.

- Michelle Fischbach, response.

- And I believe the Dobbs decision was the appropriate decision.

You know, the Dobbs decision put this issue back into the hands of elected officials, where it should have been for the last 50 years.

And I am on a bill and the federal level to ban abortion after 20 weeks, and I think that at 20 weeks is not just an abstract number, It is the number where it is the time of the pregnancy where a child feels pain, and I would argue that if you don't support that 20 weeks, then you would support any kind of, you know, the extreme agenda of late term abortions all the way up to the time of birth.

- Travis Johnson.

- I would like to ask Michelle where exactly in the constitution she's finding the authority for the federal government to ban abortion.

Federal government doesn't even ban murder except for very limited case, such as on government property, members of the judiciary.

Murder itself is not a federal law prohibited.

Why?

Because Congress didn't have that authority.

They had a very narrow ability to make that authority when it regards to federal property, or people who are part of the judiciary.

So my question is where in the constitution do you have that authority?

- I would argue that, you know, that the constitutionality of a law is built in, and the Supreme Court would absolutely have to decide if that was the case.

- All right, Jill Abahsain, I know you want back in on this.

- This is using a religiously inspired opinion, and putting it into the political arena.

It does not belong there.

Dobbs, what it did was just take away a federal mandate.

Not mandate, a federal control of the ability to have medical procedures, and is giving it over to the states.

The states then go ahead and select through a whatever shifting system of their own particular religious belief system of the procreation of humans.

This is not something that politicians should have anything to do with it at all.

- [Matt] Michelle Fischbach.

- I would argue that this is not religious belief.

Science has moved forward over the last 50 years since the decision with Roe.

We have ultrasounds, we have 4D ultrasounds, we have all kinds.

We know that a child can feel pain at 20 weeks, and during COVID we were told to follow the science, and I would argue let's follow the science on this because there is a child that's involved.

- [Jill] Matter of semantics.

- [Matt] Travis Johnson.

- My last thing I wanna say on this is as a elected representative, I don't wanna make this call.

I sat 18 months ago with a room full of conservatives, and we went around this room full of conservatives and said, "Hey, who here is against abortion completely?"

Three or four people raised their hands.

"How many are against abortion in these terms, for rape, incest?"

A couple more raise their hands.

I had a room full of conservatives.

We couldn't come to any consensus on when abortion should be banned or if it should be banned.

As a politician, who am I to make that choice?

I don't want that responsibility.

I'm not God.

- [Jill] Also not a woman.

It's a woman's choice.

- Okay, Jill Abahsain.

- It's a woman's choice.

Politicians should not be making these choices.

They are personal choices between a woman and her physician.

- Michelle Fischbach.

Last word then we'll move on to farm policy.

- I think we can be done.

- Okay, let's move on to farm policy.

Very important in the seventh district as we know, and it impacts the district heavily.

What are each of your thoughts on farm policy, the sugar program, the next Farm Bill, crop insurance, and the direction of farming and making sure farmers are successful in the seventh district?

Jill Abahsain, you start this time.

- Well, the Farm Bill, it's biggest issue right now is the fact that it's gonna expire in 2023.

And we need enough politicians to be able to make a bipartisan agreement to continue a bill that has been successful.

Made in the 1930s, made better in the 1960s under Johnson, and has been supporting farmers in Minnesota's best agricultural district for decades.

To allow it to expire would cause it to be reconfigured, and the Republican Study Committee is looking at decoupling the very important nutrition title, the national food security from the nutrition title, and they want to take it away because of the disagreement over the SNAP, which is food security.

Farmers' growth subsidies, which in turn ultimately feed people who can't feed themselves.

It's a wonderful program.

It keeps America from starving.

That was Johnson's idea in the '60s.

To change that now and give it to the states would cause a disruption in our food security for decades to come.

- Michelle Fischbach, response.

You know, we absolutely have to have a robust 2023 Farm Bill.

You know, I was actually a little disappointed that we started the Farm Bill hearings a little later, but we are going at them now and, you know, I've been talking to farmers across the district and that's the important part is that we make sure that we get the kind of input from farmers from the farm groups.

You know, I have an ag advisory committee that I've been talking to and, you know, some of the things that come up, we need to be dealing, we need to make sure we have strong crop insurance, we need to deal with the risk management.

We need to make sure that the disaster programs are there and they're sustainable.

You know, we also need to maintain that sugar program.

We need to look at broadband 'cause broadband is contained in some of the Farm Bill.

But really I think right now, the critical part is making sure that we are listening to the farmers, what works, what doesn't work, and that we understand that one size does not fit all and we need to make sure that our programs are flexible enough for everyone to use them.

- Travis Johnson.

- Unfortunately, I don't have a farm or ag committee to help me along with the farm program.

I do have a gentleman who's helping me out by the name of Collin Peterson, however.

One of the things me and Collin had talked about, and as Jill brought up was the SNAP program.

I mean, truth of the matter is, we will never decouple SNAP from the Farm Bill.

It won't pass.

Okay, there are not enough people in the metro area willing to support a Farm Bill unless there's gonna be something in it for them and their constituents.

Facts are facts.

Okay?

So any talk about decoupling this is a pipe dream.

The sugar program and coming from a libertarian background, dang it, I hate a lot of these subsidy programs.

But at the same time, when we look at sugar, we're not looking at a free market.

We're looking at a lot of Caribbean and South American socialist countries where the government heavily subsidized the sugar production because they need people working instead of standing in the protesting government because they don't have nothing to eat.

It's not fair to ask our sugar farmers to compete on that stage when they have that much kind of subsidies coming in.

I mean, it's just not fair.

But we do need to make sure we do have a program that works, and we need to be able to work together.

But I mean, we need to be able to work across the aisle.

Okay?

I mean, this is my whole thing with separating these two programs is it comes into a Republican versus Democrat issue.

That crap's gotta, that stuff's gotta stop.

I mean, we've gotta work together, find ways we can work together to move this country forward, and I don't think either side's really interested in doing that right now.

- Jill Abahsain.

- You are right.

Well, Collin Peterson, he was a genius in getting the Farm Bill through on a bipartisan basis.

I worry now that he's gone, that that's not gonna happen.

And the way our Congress is divided is that might not happen.

Which is why I do worry why the Republican Study Committee would be looking at a way of changing the basics of the Farm Bill to get the states involved instead of the federal government.

Why fix something that has been working so well for farmers?

The farmers that I talk to have no issue with the Farm Bill the way it is.

I am floored that there is even talk about that.

The Farm Bill needs to stay, it needs to be bipartisan.

I hope that we can work across the aisle.

They cannot take the SNAP part away from the Farm Bill.

It serves the farmers, it serves all of America, and to give it to the states would be chaotic again.

- Michelle Fischbach.

- Well, I know that the potential, well, possibly the next chair of the House Ag committee would be GT Thompson if the Republicans do take control in January.

And I know that his priority as is mine, is making sure that we pass a strong Farm Bill on time with the kinds of things that need to be in there.

- Travis Johnson, last word on this.

- One thing I would like to go back onto SNAP for a minute.

I mean, the program needs to be there, but it needs to be tuned up.

Okay, right now when you get SNAP, you can use it for a whole wide range of products that don't necessarily directly benefit American farmers.

You can get pro a lot of processed foods and stuff like that.

I would rather see the SNAP program go back to really, I mean, make it part of the Farm Bill.

If it's part of the Farm Bill, it should impact American farmers, okay?

Not company or corporation products who do processed foods that don't even have to be from this country, okay?

So I would like to see that kind of fine tuned.

I'd also like to see a little bit more in there as far as the cultivation of hemp.

I have a big concern right now with corn and ethanol production.

40% of our corn in this country is used towards ethanol.

As we push towards clean and green energy, where is this market gonna go?

Where are these acres gonna go that are currently used for ethanol as that demand starts to drop over the next five to 10 years?

We need to cultivate another crop.

Hemp would be an ideal crop, especially in our environment.

And if we get ahead of the power curve here, we can also get that infrastructure built in Western Minnesota to provide for these various products from hemp.

- All right, let's move to our next topic, and this question comes from our co-sponsor, AARP.

"Social security is a promise that must be kept.

If elected, how would you protect earned social security benefits for the future?"

Michelle Fischbach, you start us off on this one.

- And, you know, I will fight to protect those social security benefits that have been earned.

You know, this is a program that people have paid into and they deserve those benefits.

You know, one of the issues is with social security is we need to make sure that we stop politicizing social security, and that we actually have serious long term discussions, both Republicans and Democrats, because it has been so politicized that we can't make those kinds of changes or decisions that we need to.

But I absolutely believe in protecting, particularly those that are currently receiving benefits, making sure that those benefits don't change.

You know, we are struggling with inflation because obviously we have to do cost of living increases and so it makes it more difficult for the program, but we need to protect that program.

It is earned.

It is an earned program and we need to make sure that people get the benefits they are entitled to.

- Travis Johnson.

- My question is, and it definitely does need to be protected, but what I haven't heard yet is how, okay?

Right now we have so many of the when you talk about social security and you start talking about the money if it was invested in the stock market over the past 30 or 40 years, where would that money be now compared to where our social security fund is now?

You have 2.8 or $2.9 trillion that the federal government has used out of that fund, okay?

What is our plan for getting that repaid and getting it invested in something that pays a lot more than a treasury note so that this fund is around a long time.

People are living longer.

When this program was first put into effect, a lot of people weren't even gonna live long enough to use it.

So the program needs to grow and needs to change with the times, with medical, and I mean, some things we may have to look at is what our ages are 'cause we're expected to live longer now.

Nobody wants to work longer, but I don't know how else you do it and keep the program solvent.

- Okay, Jill Abahsain, response.

- Addressing the fact that Michelle Fischbach says that we should not be politicizing social security.

Stop politicizing it.

It's a program, it works well, it's been working for decades.

It has become a popular issue.

I think fear monger among the elderly.

No, I don't believe they're gonna change their benefits within the next 10, 20 years.

But there is talk about how it is going to lose its funding.

And the funding, just as Bull has said, the deficit is there because Congress has borrowed from it for decades, both parties.

Those funds need to be paid back.

People don't like the fact that there's been a suggestion that a scholarship loan should not be paid back or can be forgiven.

Do we wanna forgive Congress for not paying back all of these trillions, which they should not have taken from a social security program in the first place?

That was something that was for the people, and was not meant to be for partisan politics.

- Michelle Fischbach, do you wanna jump in and respond?

- You know, I'll just say once again, we really do need to get serious and, you know, and really truly have those discussions that we need to to make sure that we can make sure that social security stays strong.

- Travis Johnson.

- And I agree.

I mean, this is again, more of a libertarian, but I don't like giving stuff away, but this is an entitlement.

This is something people have earned, okay?

This is a promise we made to them for participating in this system, and we didn't even give 'em the choice to participate or not.

We need to make good on our promises.

- Last word on this, Jill Abahsain.

- I'll just say that a modern civilized society will have protection for its people in retirement, in disability, in programs going forward.

It needs to be something that's safeguarded not just for this next couple decades, but in perpetuity.

Our nation deserves that, and it should not be politicized.

It should not be privatized either.

- All right, let's move on to our next topic.

Another big recent move at the federal level.

That was President Biden's forgiveness of $10,000 per person, and another 10,000 per person if they had Pell grants of student loan debt.

My question and debate topic is, is this good policy or not?

And what, if anything, can be done to reduce the cost of going to college?

Travis Johnson, you start us off on this one.

- Boy, that's a softball pitch to me to a certain extent.

No, I don't think it should be forgiven.

I believe just like Jill talked about with the federal government, everybody's responsibilities.

This is responsibility these people took.

Now the problem we ran into is the government got so lenient on giving these loans, okay?

There's no proof of being able to pay this loan off when you come up to when you complete your education.

I'd love to see the same type of requirements put onto student loans as we have VA loans.

I mean, if you get a VA loan, I mean, you're jumping through hoops to prove that you have the value, you have the money that you're gonna be able to pay it off.

The fact that we don't require any of that, and we basically started shoving everybody we could through college in the '80s and '90s have created such an increased demand when we didn't have the supply.

Of course, prices skyrocketed.

I mean, and the main office you have screaming about this debt forgiveness, I mean, do you wanna look something up?

Look how much Elizabeth Warren got paid to teach one class at Harvard.

That's why it's so expensive.

- Jill Abahsain.

- It became expensive after, I believe, the Reagan years began to take away federal funding from state universities.

And the graph shows that the tuition is going up and up and up after that.

I went through school, easily paid for my schooling with a part-time job.

That was back in the good old days.

But it's not the students' issues that the federal government was made to give up the help that they had originally intended to do.

This was something that was helping corporate loan and mortgage companies.

And as he says, it pushed students into taking loans that they didn't need or shouldn't have taken into a program that had become inflated because of political policies.

Leave things alone when they're working.

It was working well and it was changed.

I think it's only fair that they be forgiven as much as the government can tolerate.

This is something that is done in all other industrialized, civilized nations.

They pay for at least two years of post high school education.

This is what we need to keep this country educated.

- Michelle Fischbach, response.

- Thank you, and this is bad policy.

This is just unfair to anyone who did the responsible thing by paying their school while they went, or went to a less expensive school, or paid off their student loans.

So it is just unfair to those who did the responsible thing.

You know, what we can be looking at to lower costs is we certainly can be looking at administration costs, but this it doesn't.

Just paying off student loans does not address the issues.

With the student loan program, with college costs, anything like that, you know, the other thing that we can be doing for higher ed in general is encouraging those trades schools because that is something that people, you know, have been discouraged from going through.

We've been talking about oh four year college, four year college, and we need to make sure that they understand that there is a wonderful way to make a living in those trade schools too.

They do a great job educating and there's lots of demand when we're talking about workforce issues.

There's lots of demand there for them too.

But I think that as for just paying off student loans, we don't have the money.

We can't afford it, and it's unfair to those who did the responsible thing.

- [Matt] Travis Johnson, you wanna take another bite of the apple on this one?

- Yeah, definitely.

I mean, do we wanna reward responsibility?

Do we want to reward people taking loans for an education that they may or may not be able to use?

I mean, I earned three degrees and you know what, I worked my way through each of them, okay?

I mean, it's something we have to encourage people.

I mean, 'cause over the last 30 or 40 years as a whole, this country has stopped holding people accountable for anything, including Congress.

Okay, Congress doesn't get a free pass.

But I mean, with a lot of our programs now, I mean, where you can't lose a game, you can't, I mean, there is no responsibility being taught anymore, and I think this contributes to it.

I don't wanna see the money spent because you know what?

I'm paying for that money.

I chose to join the army so I can get an education, okay?

I know other people who worked off, when I was growing up in Louisiana, worked on a tugboat where it was extremely dangerous so they would have the money to be able to come back and go to college without owing an arm and a leg, who worked their way through.

Asking them to pay for somebody else's education is insulting.

- [Matt] Jill Abahsain, response.

- This again, is morality coming into politics.

What you feel, what you believe is incorrect behavior is not a political issue.

The students that get $10,000, maybe 20, to pay back a student loan, the ones that can use it are the ones that went to responsible probably state and institutions.

Ones that went to expensive schools that's paid 500,000 to go through, these loans are not even gonna make any kind of mark.

And where the money is supposed to be coming from is to get the upper 1% to pay their taxes, hold them to the taxes that they're supposed to be paying.

Many of our programs that are good for this country would be paid for.

It's not a matter of morality, it's a matter of choice.

And the government being responsible to help educated citizens.

- [Matt] Okay, Michelle Fischbach last word in this.

We'll move to the next topic.

- I guess I will just say this is bad policy on so many levels.

- Okay, next topic.

Let's move on with the time we have left.

The congressional hearings into the January 6th US capitol protest.

What are your views on these hearings, all of you?

Should they continue?

Should former President Trump ever be charged in relation to this or anything that was obtained at Mar-a-Lago?

Jill Abahsain, you go first on this.

- If I understand you correctly, should the January 6th commission continue investigating?

- Continue and what are your views on what happened and what should go forward from here?

- Okay, it's up to the commission whether they wish to continue or not.

That is not something that a non-politician at this point can make.

There was an insurrection, there was an impeached president, there was a president that wanted to stay in power, and there was a spreading of a lie that our democracy is questionable, and to deny the election results, to support an insurrection is the first step towards a authoritarian rule because once you start doubting our election practices, our democracy is in danger.

I believe it is already in danger.

We have to stop questioning.

We have to come together as a country and agree that we are a democracy, and we play by its rules, and that there has been no evidence of electoral malfeasance.

And if it takes a commission longer to do that, so be it.

- Michelle Fischbach, response.

- The January 6th commission was put together just literally to find Republicans guilty of something.

It is a production that they have put together.

They have hired makeup artists, they have teleprompters, they have a producer, and it's just a political charade.

And it will end at the end of this congress so it'll be done at the end of the year.

But I think what is really sad is that January 6th then COVID have been used to shut down the capitol and shut down the ability for people to come and visit there at the time.

I mean, it's open a little bit more now, but it was at the time to shut down the capital and inhibit people's ability to go see their congressmen.

And then they were keeping records of who was coming into the capitol, in and out of the capitol, and I think that it never should have been shut down.

It should be open.

We are elected representatives.

People should have been able to come and see us.

And so I think that it's sad that it was used to do that.

- Travis Johnson.

- This is a topic I have a hard time with, honestly.

I remember when July 6th... January 6th rolled around, I was pissed.

I was so upset.

And then I started talking to the people who were there January 6th, and we're talking about constituents from my district.

I mean, who would tell you, you know what?

I mean, the stuff you saw on TV, that's not what I saw there.

When you talk about the January 6th hearings, they're not looking for all of this other stuff.

They are looking specifically, and this is my personal opinion, for politically.

July 6th needs to be investigated.

It needs to be investigated properly.

I mean, let's get an independent prosecutor to look at this because why?

'Cause there are Americans right now sitting in jails for I believe that were actually a pawn to the whole procedure, okay?

We need to find out what really happened.

And if it does come out that President Trump knew he lost that election, believed he lost that election, and started this path that he started with, that sounds like treason.

And to quote President Trump, "We all know what the penalty for treason is."

I mean, you're gonna destroy if, and I'm not saying he did, but we need a full investigation.

And if he sacrificed the wellbeing of this country because he wanted to be president when he know he lost, there needs to be accountability.

There needs to be accountability for these documents that are sitting in Mar-a-Lago, okay?

I worked in the military long enough that I know what type of documents this may entail.

I know what's at risk with these documents if they were to get into our enemy's hands.

Again, we need an independent prosecutor who's not tied to the political process, who can give us a no crap answer.

This is what happened.

This is what we found.

And we haven't seen that yet.

Everything we've seen so far has been political charades.

- Jill Abahsain, do you wanna jump back in here?

- You said if there should be an investigation, there is an investigation.

That's what's going on, and it has been found that he's guilty of knowing that he had lost.

This has been found.

What kind of a secondary investigation you're talking about?

And good luck with getting bipartisan bills like a Farm Bill passed if you're gonna hold that kind of a radical belief.

- [Travis] That I want justice impartial?

- Why is it not impartial?

It is a congressional committee.

- Steered by one party.

- That was not their choice.

- Yes, it was because it would've still been steered by the Democrats because they were the majority.

- And they wouldn't accept.

They wouldn't accept the Republicans.

- I understand.

- They refused to accept the Republicans.

- I understand what happened.

I understand the party politics we're going into.

Regardless, your first vote in Congress was to deny a free and fair transfer of power.

You held up- - No, it wasn't.

- Yes it was.

- No, it wasn't.

- You rejected the electoral ballots of Pennsylvania and Arizona.

- So that they could be looked into.

- And that is a way of casting doubt on our democratic process.

And that is what leads to a lot of the things that are going on now, but to cause our democracy to become weaker as people fear what voting might bring about or not bring about.

For you to cast stones, it is beyond reproach.

- Michelle Fischbach, response.

I voted to look into two states.

That's it.

Two states.

I voted the same way the Democrats have voted every time a Republican wins the presidential election in the past I don't know how many years, the decades.

Yes, there are many members of congress, Democrat members of Congress sitting in right now that have voted to question to not certify several states when a Republican wins.

Just look at 2016.

But so to to say that I somehow, you know, was an enemy to democracy, that's ridiculous because this is the process that we go through in order to make sure that our elections are fair and there is integrity involved in our elections.

- Travis Johnson, last word.

I wanna get a couple more topics after this as well before we're done.

I would not have voted the same way as Michelle did.

I would've voted to certify those states.

To me, when you're voting to not certify without proof in front of your face that this is not valid, then you are taking the votes away from millions of people in a state that's not even yours, okay?

The Constitution does not give us an option of saying time out, we wanna look at this more before we make a decision.

It says on this date, you vote yay or nay.

There is no, well, we need to spend some more time looking into it.

If that's in the constitution, I'd love somebody to point it out to me.

They have the option to certify or not certify, but not delay so we can vote on it later.

And to me, if you're gonna take somebody's vote away, you better have the proof in front of your face.

- All right, let's move to another topic.

We have about 15 minutes left in the debate.

Foreign policy.

Is the United States spending too much or too little on defense?

And has too much money been spent aiding Ukraine or not?

What are your views on our involvement in this conflict with Russia, and what's the greatest foreign threat right now, Russia, China, or somewhere else?

Michelle Fischbach, you start this one.

- You know, I think that both Russia and China are threats.

You know, we take a look at the aggression that Russia has shown, and just recently in the last couple of days, they are stopping import or exports of grain.

I believe, I'm trying to remember, it's about 9.5 million pounds of grain.

And their aggression is something that we need to absolutely take seriously because it is a threat.

China, they are just bad players on so many levels.

You know, with the South China Sea where they are building military bases, and their issues with patents, and not being fair in many of the business relationships they have.

And so we absolutely need to take those seriously and make sure that we are doing what we can to combat those.

- And what about the Ukraine funding?

Which is part of this question.

- Well, you know, the Ukraine funding, the original bill that we did vote on, you know, most of that went to restocking our own weapons.

We did supply Ukraine with some as along with I believe it was 31 other countries that supplied those, that helped supply Ukraine with weapons.

And, you know, I think that at this point what we really need to do before we do any more for Ukraine is we need to make sure that the Biden administration has a concrete plan of what's happening, and what our next steps are.

- Travis Johnson, response.

- I definitely think there's room for us to cut on defense.

I think one of the ways we do this is again, we bring our trip troops home.

I mean, I'm talking about the troops we have in Europe, in Germany.

I mean, it costs a lot of money to keep a troop stationed in Germany.

I mean, you're paying an additional cost of living allowance, you're paying an additional overseas housing allowance.

This is a lot of money that we've saved Britain too.

And then you're paying 'em money that they're spending on the local economy there instead of on our economy.

Okay, so we need to bring these troops back.

I was a finance guy in the army, okay?

I know there's places to cut this.

I mean, I'll give y'all a little bit of inside baseball of how some foreign military sales works 'cause everybody's like, Oh, you're giving Ukraine X amount of dollars.

No, we're not.

We're giving them a line of credit that they use through American defense contractors to buy American products that they didn't get the products.

Basically, we're buying the equipment for them.

They're not actually seeing the money, our defense contractors are, okay?

Smedley Butler made a great book called "War Is A Racket," and it is, okay?

we definitely need to revisit our defense.

We need to relook at our senior officers.

After World War II, I believe it was one general officer for every 6,000 troops.

Right now it's one to every 1,500.

We have four time as many general officers per capita than we did in World War II.

Why?

Okay, I mean, and again, I saw what these jokers were getting paid.

So there is definitely some room to cut the fat.

As far as Ukraine is concerned, you know what?

I feel for the people of Ukraine, okay?

I think they're fighting a righteous war.

However, I don't think it is American people's responsibility to take loans to pay for their war.

And that's what I feel we're doing when we give all this military aid, and we're not even doing it as loans.

We're giving it, okay?

They're taking money that my great grandkids are gonna have to pay back for another country that we don't have a personal interest in.

Now as far as whether threats to the country, honestly, yeah, I think Russia and China are huge threats.

But however, I think our own national debt is the bigger threat to us than either one of those countries are.

- Okay, Jill Abahsain, response.

- I agree that the arms corporations, they are reaping great profits from this.

I agree with your foreign policy ideas on Ukraine that it needs to be defended.

I don't think we need to increase spending, but this is not something that America is in alone.

It's a NATO issue and we are a signatory to NATO.

We are doing what we have been asked to do.

We need to stand strong, I agree, with Ukraine, We did not stand strong with Crimea when Russia just walked in and took it over.

And we did the same with China, with its one China, two countries, or whatever it was with Hong Kong.

They said that they would leave it alone for a long time.

They didn't.

They overtook it, now it is part of China.

They have their eye on Taiwan.

These are large superpowers that aim to be global powers, and they are growing little by little.

They're challenging us.

They're taking over countries.

We have got to stop them and we can't stop them by defunding things like Ukraine, or taking down our military spending.

It needs to be there, it needs to be used correctly, and diplomacy would be a lot cheaper than war.

- I wanna get one more topic in because we're running out of time.

Medicare- - [Travis] Can I get a rebuttal on that?

- Sure.

Yep.

- One thing I think we do need to honor our treaties, but the problem is Ukraine is not a NATO country.

We are not contractually obligated to protect Ukraine.

At the time period when Michelle signed or voted yes on the $40 billion dollar Ukraine assistance bill, all of Europe's countries combined basically donated for 25% of what we gave.

That's all of them combined, okay?

That's not just one or two countries.

The EU's economy is every bit the powerhouse ours is.

There is no reason for us to be doing the heavy lifting.

- Michelle Fischbach, do you wanna respond to that?

- You know, I think that it was important at that time that we did because these threats are real.

And I think going forward, what we really need to do is we need the Biden administration to come up with a strong concrete plan for what we are doing.

Their foreign policy has been weak, and we need to make sure that the Biden administration has a plan.

- Jill Abahsain, you get last word on this if you wanna use it.

- Just that on this point, I agree with Michelle Fischbach.

- Okay, last question.

We got about one minute response from each of you.

This comes from AARP as well.

"Medicare provides critical health coverage for older Americans.

If elected, how would you strengthen it for the future?

Travis Johnson, one minute response.

- I mean, we need to do the same thing we talked about social security.

I mean, this is a guaranteed entitlement.

I mean, people have paid into this, okay?

If we wanna keep it solvent, we may need to rethink of how we're paying for it or how these funds are utilized in order to grow enough to provide this program.

But I mean, again, it's a promise we've made.

I mean, I don't particularly agree with the program as far as government one payer healthcare.

I mean, do we want the whole country running like the VA?

But at the same time, I mean, we made a promise, we need to make right.

I mean, there's a lot of programs I don't agree with, but the thing is, once it's been agreed to, we have to honor it.

- Jill Abahsain, response.

- I believe we are honoring it, we should honor it.

It is something that America can be proud of to have Medicare for its seniors.

I would like to see it extended to all people that need medical care.

But yes, if we have been keeping on par with the scientific advancements with Medicare, I'm proud of that.

I'm proud that we have the funds to do that.

What we're suffering from is a lack of care workers all across the senior caregiving area, and that is something that could crash the Medicare program.

It's also related to things like education for our up and coming youth.

They should be able to be trained in trade schools to be able to help in with the senior care of Medicare.

And also immigration is needed because that is where we have a lot of talented workers, and they're not able to come in and work.

- Michelle Fischbach, response.

- Well, Medicare is on track to go insolvent within the decade, and, you know, it's a combination.

You know, we have a large number of people entering the Medicare system, and we have some systemic problems with the system, and we also have inflation, which is increasing costs.

But we need to be, and I think this is a place where we do need to have serious talks.

You know, there are things that we should be looking at like HSAs, we should be looking at, you know, telehealth, which was one of the things we did vote on to continue the telehealth programs that were put in place during COVID.

They were put in place for two more years.

I think they should have been made permanent because I think it is something that helps across all rural areas, particularly in the seventh, where we are able to access those.

But there are things that we need to be looking at to address Medicare, but we do need to protect Medicare and Part D. - Our time is fleeting, and we have to get to closing statements just like that.

One minute closing statements.

Jill Abahsain, you're first.

- Thank you for having this opportunity.

- [Matt] Sorry, Travis Johnson is first.

I went out of order.

Travis Johnson, you're first.

- Again, I do wanna do the same thing.

I wanna thank you for having us.

To the voters of the Minnesota Seventh District, in a week you have a choice, okay?

I advise you to be wise on that choice.

If you vote for me, you're voting for an independent vote, independent voice who is there to represent you.

I'm not there to represent a party, okay?

I am there to represent the people in my district.

You know what?

What you've heard from me here today is the truth.

What you see is what you get, okay?

I don't play the games, I don't run around in circles, okay?

You may like what I say, you may not like what I have to say, but you're always gonna know where I stand.

If I wanna represent you, that's the least that I owe you.

And the other thing I owe you is to listen to you, okay?

My door will be open whether you agree with me or disagree with me.

I wanna represent all the people of this district.

You have a choice, you can either go basically vote for an independent, you can vote for Kevin McCarthy, or you could vote for Nancy Pelosi.

Because that's the only way the parties look at these two candidates is they are a tool to determine who the next majority leader's gonna be.

- That's one minute.

Thank you, Travis.

Thank you.

Jill Abahsain, one minute closing statement.

- Again, thank you for having this debate.

Apparently, we don't have as many debates in this cycle as we have been.

And debate is part of keeping our democracy safe.

It's important to be here, and I thank our guests as well for coming.

I want to run and keep our Western Minnesota, our district served.

Give them the services that they deserve, they have deserved for a long time.

The Western rural Minnesota is in a state of decline, and I would like to see the towns and the rural lifestyle revitalized by using the infrastructure money that has been set aside that has not been spent correctly or responsibly.

We have a great future ahead of us.

We cannot trust it to private corporations and financial elites.

I do hope you will vote.

I am not a standard Democrat.

I am a lover of Western rural Minnesota.

- And Michelle Fischbach, one minute closing statement.

- Well, thank you again, and I really have appreciated the opportunity to share a few thoughts today, and I have been honored to serve the seventh district for the past two years, and I hope I have the opportunity to continue that service to you.

I would like to just say thank you so much for listening in tonight, and I humbly ask for your vote this Fall.

- All right, thanks to all of you.

My guests, Michelle Fischbach, Travis Johnson, Jill Abahsain, good luck.

A reminder, election day is November 8th and early voting is underway.

I'm Matt Olien for Prairie Public.

So long.

(soft bright music) - [Announcer] Funding for election 2022 coverage is provided in part by AARP.

A non-profit nonpartisan membership association, 83,000 strong in North Dakota.

Find information on how to make your voice heard in the 2022 election at aarp.org/ndvotes.

And by the members of Prairie Public.