- [Announcer] Funding for election 2024 coverage is provided in part by AARP, a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership association, 83,000 strong in North Dakota.

Find information on how to make your voice heard in the 2024 election at aarp.org/ndvotes.

And by the members of Prairie Public.

(inspiring music) (inspiring music fades out) - Hello, I'm Matt Olien.

Welcome to Prairie Public and AARP North Dakota's coverage of election 2024.

Tonight, the debate for one of the two US Senate seats from North Dakota.

My guests are Democratic nominee Katrina Christiansen, and Republican Senator Kevin Cramer.

Each candidate will be afforded a one-minute opening and one minute closing statement.

In between, they will discuss and debate topics and questions chosen by myself, along with Prairie Public's news director Dave Thompson, and our partners at AARP.

Based on a coin flip, Katrina Christiansen goes first on opening statements.

- Thank you, Matt.

I really appreciate you moderating the debate.

Thank you, AARP, and your members, and Prairie Public for hosting this debate.

And thank you Senator Cramer for joining me.

I know you have a busy schedule.

For those of you who don't know me, I'm Katrina Christiansen.

I'm from Jamestown, North Dakota, home to the world's largest buffalo monument.

I live there with my husband Max and our three kids.

I'm an agricultural engineer.

I've known from a very young age that I wanted to give back to the communities, like the one I grew up in, a small town where agriculture was the economic engine.

I've had the opportunity to work in the private sector as an engineer.

I've worked in energy and value added processing.

I've had to solve problems on really short timelines and tight budgets.

And tonight you're gonna hear a stark contrast between a career politician who's gonna lean hard on DC talking points, and somebody who's had the opportunity to go to all 53 counties in North Dakota, who understands North Dakota values, who knows what it's like to go to the grocery store, who knows what it's like to buy school supplies.

Thank you so much.

- One-mintue opening statement, Senator Cramer.

- Thank you, Matt, for once again lending your talents multiple times in this process, and to Dave Thompson, another real pro, to Prairie Public Television, to AARP, to you, Ms. Christiansen as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, not only for this moment and this debate, but for stepping into the arena.

It's really important that people do that in our wonderful self-governed system, especially in the United States Senate, where it's a very deliberative body.

Fast solutions are rarely sought, much less gotten, but it's a grind.

It's a place where it's the most deliberative body in the world and takes a lot of time to do those things.

With regard to talking points, though, I will say this, Matt.

One thing you don't get from me are talking points.

Any reporter in Washington DC will tell you I don't do talking points.

I do straight talk, talk to North Dakotans, talk about the tough issues, as well as the easy issues.

I've been to all 53 counties multiple times in my career.

Yes, I have spent a good deal of my adult life in public service.

I never stay in the same job very long.

Try to move up and do better for North Dakota.

And look forward to the evening.

Thank you.

- Alright, first topic.

Let's start with immigration.

With the controversies surrounding immigration in rural communities like Springfield, Ohio, how do each of you address the concerns over xenophobia, along with the need for workers, especially in North Dakota, also the concerns over strained resources in communities caused by immigration?

Senator Cramer, you start us off on this one.

- Sure.

Well, the first immigration challenge we have to fix is the southern border, the southern border, which was fixed when Donald Trump was president four years ago and Republicans had a majority in the Senate.

And it was opened wide open by Kamala Harris as the border czar and let 10 million people come in illegally.

Among those 10 million, 1 million of them convicted felons.

13,000 of them are, in fact murders, convicted murders.

15,000, convicted rapists.

With regard to legal immigration, which is an important part of the point, Matt, we oftentimes don't talk about it, I've advocated many times for a skills-based, merit-based immigration system.

In the United States, we allow 1 million workers to come into the United States or immigrants legally to come into the United States.

Only 15% of them are required to have a skillset or an education that's in high demand in our economy.

I think we can do both.

I think we can solve the southern border problem.

In fact, if Donald Trump gets elected, he'll solve that in a matter of days.

And I think we can also solve the workforce challenge that we have.

Clearly, we have a shortage of people, a shortage of workers, and we ought to be able to have more of our legal immigrants come to the United States, not because they won the lottery or because they have a family member here, but rather because they bring a skillset, an education, some sort of an experience that adds value to the marketplace and the economy of the United States.

We need them.

- Christiansen.

- Thank you, Matt.

I think Senator Cramer showed us he does have those DC talking points in that answer.

I want a secure border.

I wanna make sure that our communities are safe.

And we had an opportunity earlier in this year, a transformative bill, a bipartisan border bill, the most conservative border bill that we've seen in 40 years.

It would've given resources to Border Patrol to deal with the human trafficking crisis, to deal with the migratory crisis.

It would've installed fentanyl detectors at our border to detect drugs.

And it also would've given resources to the judicial system to adjudicate those asylum cases.

This is the sort of thing that we should have passed.

My opponent voted twice, no on the bill.

He turned his back on North Dakota communities.

When I go to the Senate in January of 2025, I'm going to ask the Senate majority leader to bring back that bill because I wanna protect our communities.

- Thank you.

Senator Cramer, response.

- Well, she's right about one thing.

This is a stark difference.

The bill that she wants to vote for, that she wants to support, that she criticizes me for voting against, actually provided an incentive for more cities to be sanctuaries.

It provided new funding for sanctuary cities.

Now here's what a sanctuary city is.

They're places like Chicago, New York, San Francisco.

And the reason they're overrun by illegal immigrants, criminal immigrants is because they have a sanctuary for illegal immigrants.

In other words, if you are an illegal immigrant and you can make it to a sanctuary city, that sanctuary city has pledged not to cooperate with federal resources or federal law enforcement to have you removed from the city.

The idea, the very idea we would fund and incentivize cities to not just allow a criminal element, but to actually provide a sanctuary for them does not keep places in North Dakota safe.

It's exactly the draw that brings more people across the border.

It's why we've had 10 million illegal crossings already since Kamala Harris became the border czar.

The very idea that I would turn my back on North Dakotans and do something like that.

People don't know me very well if they thought I would do that.

- [Matt] Okay, Katrina Christiansen, response.

- I think we just have our second example of DC talking points.

The reality is this bill was incredibly pragmatic.

I think when we talk about these sorts of things, like the bipartisan border bill that would've stopped fentanyl from coming into our communities, that would've given the Border Patrol more than 1400 new agents to deal with a migratory crisis, that's the pragmatic part.

That's what North Dakotans want in the Senate.

They want somebody who's willing to join with the other side, and solve problems, and stop fentanyl from coming in.

The idealist, the talking point stuff has to stop.

We have to solve this problem.

We need to do this.

We should have done it in May, but when I go to DC in January, we'll get this done.

- Okay, we have a lot of topics to get through, so I'm gonna get over to the next one.

Let's move to the recent ruling by a North Dakota judge that North Dakota's six week abortion ban should be vacated and ruled unconstitutional.

I know you both share different views on this topic, and voters want to hear them.

So tell me your reaction to this first, and also what state or federal guidelines would you both favor regarding this controversial issue?

Katrina Christiansen, you start us off this time.

- So I support that women should have access to the healthcare that they need when they need it.

Since the overturning of Roe, we've seen these really poorly written bans passed in states across the country.

And we've also seen news story after news story of women being denied life preserving care and, most recently, women actually dying under really restrictive bans.

We've seen people have to be life rided from Idaho to Utah.

We've seen people have to drive from Oklahoma with cancerous tissue that won't be removed to Kansas to get treatment.

We've heard about people being denied care in hospital parking lots.

This isn't the United States of America.

These things don't represent North Dakota values.

We've also seen a backlash towards IVF care and birth control.

We need to have access to healthcare as women.

It's very complicated, and I think it's important that this ban be overturned here in North Dakota.

And I also think at the federal level, we need to protect women's access to healthcare, including IVF.

- Senator Cramer, response.

- Well, first of all, you brought up a state case in a federal race, so that'll be up to the Attorney General of North Dakota to defend North Dakota's law in district court.

My understanding is they're going to appeal it.

We'll let that work its way through.

The overturning of Roe versus Wade actually gave states that right.

By the way, the Constitution of the United States was written for states to create a federal government, not the other way around.

So states rights is very important to me.

I am pro-life, but I'm also a solution-oriented, pro-life Republican, which is exactly why I'm a co-chairman with Amy Klobuchar of the Adoption Caucus.

It's why I introduced legislation to make deadbeat fathers accountable for their unborn children.

It's why I've worked with Senator Tammy Duckworth on providing finances, financial aid for purchase of things as basic as diapers for babies.

I think we have to be compassionate about life, and I think we need to have a culture of life.

My Opponent likes to talk about Washington DC talking points.

She just rattled off the most far left radical talking points of the pro-abortion industry in America.

She's the corporate person here, not me.

She's the one usingtalking points, not me.

- Katrina Christiansen.

- I don't think anyone on this stage is pro-abortion.

And I think it's, quite frankly, disrespectful to label me in that way.

I have given birth to three children.

But what I do think is that people deserve access to healthcare.

They deserve to live their lives the way that they want to and to know that when they need healthcare, they can get it regardless of the state that they live in.

- [Matt] Senator Cramer.

- Well, I wanna add something to the IVF point she keeps making, because she brought up IVF, she brought up contraception.

No Republican, nobody ever has opposed those types of freedoms.

The one entity that has brought him up though is Chuck Schumer, the majority leader she can't wait to work with.

He has brought up twice an IVF bill called something like the IVF Access Act, which is a Trojan horse that most everybody would agree is awful, if you look at the details.

Here's what it does.

It guarantees access to all forms of what are called ARTs, assistive reproduction technologies.

That includes human cloning.

That includes gene editing.

It prohibits states from even regulating those things.

States as liberal as Colorado regulate them.

States as conservative as Texas regulate them.

This is another state's rights issue.

But here's the big thing.

There's not a single state in the country that prohibits access to IVF or ARTs or to contraception.

So this, again, talking points from the radical left so that they can push their radical leftist agenda and push their doctrine, if you will, on this very important issue of life.

- [Matt] Christiansen, do you want one more response on this?

- I think it's really important that Senator Cramer who co-sponsor a 2021 national abortion ban answer if he would consider voting to pass another national abortion ban.

You say that you support state's rights, but you co-sponsored a national abortion ban.

- Sure, so when it comes to the protection of life, I assume I can do this as well.

- [Matt] You have the last word on this.

- Oh, good, okay.

- [Matt] And then we'll move on to the next topic.

- Yeah, so I do believe that life is worth protecting.

I am pro-life.

I don't apologize for that.

North Dakota is pro-life.

I do think there need to be guardrails.

I think that you can have the exceptions that have been around for 50, 60 years to consider rape, the life of the mother, obviously incest, but I also think you have to recognize that a baby is a human being at every stage of life, including pre-life.

And we can work these things out and find some appropriate protection with appropriate guardrails and appropriate regulations.

But I am pro-life.

I don't apologize for being pro-life.

I think we ought to have a culture of life.

- Okay, let's move to the next topic, inflation, the economy, one of the key issues in the presidential race that we're hearing, and, of course, a federal issue as well in the country.

Some argue excessive government spending has led to inflation, yet North Dakota is a key beneficiary of government spending.

How do you two reconcile these two issues and how, as senator, would each of you work to get inflation under control?

And Senator Cramer, you start this time.

- Sure, first thing we need to do to get inflation under control is to actually cut some of that free government spending, particularly this mandatory spending on what used to be the discretionary side of the budget.

But the first thing and the best thing you can do to curb inflation is to grow the economy of the country.

And you can do that by reducing taxes.

You can do that by reducing regulations, the overbearing regulations that have overwhelmed many in the agriculture industry, many in the energy industry.

We've actually transferred much of our opportunity for mining, for extracting of minerals, for growing food to other countries because we make the cost so high with regulation.

Fortunately, our Supreme Court has overturned a number of bad things such as the Chevron doctrine, such as the waters of the United States, such as the North Dakota versus EPA using the Major Questions Doctrine, where they gave rights back to the states.

And I think that go a long ways to growing our economy and curbing inflation.

- [Matt] Katrina Christiansen.

- You know, I totally agree that prices are too high.

I go to the grocery store, I buy groceries for three kids every other day, and I feel it.

And I most acutely felt it when I had to buy a new car.

And I'd only had this car for about three years, and the interest rate was 3% higher on the car that I had to buy, and it cost $7,000 more.

The reality is what we need are senators who are willing to deal with the consolidation and the lack of competition that we have in our marketplace.

My opponent, I think, went to DC with really good intentions.

He's taken over $2.3 million in corporate PAC donations.

130,000 of that came from big banks.

And I have to wonder, is he really serving the state of North Dakota and North Dakotans when he is had those donations?

He was upset about the Fed lowering interest rates earlier this summer, and he was upset when they did lower it.

What Senator Cramer doesn't understand, because he hasn't had to work for a living, is that for every increase the Fed has, our small businesses, our farmers lose out on future growth.

It's time to send Kevin home.

- Senator Cramer, respond.

- So those credit unions are awfully large banks, Matt.

In the independent community, banks that have rural North Dakota are not real large banks.

Even the North Dakota Bankers Association's made up, pretty much, of pretty much local banks.

So yeah, am I on the banking committee?

You bet.

Am I on the banking committee to look out for the little guy?

Every day of the week.

Now inflation is the result of overcharging on the demand side of the economy.

That's what they did with the IRA, interestingly named, the Inflation Reduction Act.

Really, Inflation Enhancement Act.

That's what they did with the American Rescue plan, and they were warned, they being the Democrats, 100% Democrats, 0% Republicans voted for those two bills that supercharged put fuel on the fire of inflation in this country, warned by democratic economists that said that this was gonna cause an inflation problem.

It's the inflation then that drove the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates.

They should have started sooner.

They could have done it more modestly.

They chose not to.

I know how to fix the inflation problem.

Elect a Republican majority.

- Last word on this, Katrina Christiansen.

- Yes, I think, you know, Senator Cramer doesn't wanna address the fact that he didn't fight the 2018 tariffs that destroyed the soybean market for farmers in North Dakota.

You know, we lost $6 billion worth of revenue for our farmers with those tariffs.

It's incredibly dangerous.

And the fact that that didn't...

It caused inflationary pressures in the United States.

Tariffs are really dangerous.

You know, Kevin talks about fighting for North Dakotans, but we didn't hear 'em fighting for those soybean farmers in 2018.

They've lost those markets.

They're no longer there for us.

And right now soybean farmers are dealing with prices that are 20% below profitability.

We need to send somebody to Washington DC that understands agriculture, understands markets, understands competitiveness.

It's time to send Kevin home.

- Senator Cramer.

- I have to respond to this because she just made a terrible error.

There are 535 members of the United States Congress.

In 2018 when the tariffs were levied and the Department of Commerce had hearings on these tariffs, 534 members of Congress didn't show up.

One did.

That was me.

And I was in the House of Representatives at the time.

I was literally the only member of the United States Congress to stand up, and oppose, and ask for waivers, and ask for, you know, adjustments related to products that are important to North Dakota at the Department of Commerce.

And by the way, they heard that.

They listened to that, and they did provide some of the waivers.

And with regard to tariffs, the very idea that we wouldn't use tariffs on a country that's dumping on our country products too cheaply, that's exactly what tariffs are for, is to defend our industries in the United States of America.

- Okay, last word on this.

- Yes.

- Then, we de to move on.

- I would like to have the last word.

- Of, course you would.

- So he talks about reshoring manufacturing and producing things here, but Senator Cramer voted against the CHIP Act.

In the United States of America, we do the best innovation, we should be reshoring manufacturing.

And that's what the CHIP Act would've done.

And it would've helped with some of the supply chain pressures that we experienced following the pandemic.

It's really important that we bring that production back to the United States of America, that we drive innovation, that we drive growth, and we drive revenue.

Those are the real solutions to innovation, not talking points.

- Now who's-- - We need to move on to farming, and you can continue this if you want.

So let's talk farming.

It's been mentioned already.

Farm economy, how do each of you stand on continuing farm subsidies?

How crucial is farming in the state And what do you think of the next farm bill?

And you can continue this tariff talk if you want.

Katrina Christiansen go first on this one.

- You know, I'm an agricultural engineer.

I love to talk about the farm bill.

I get very excited.

I've met with so many ranchers and farmers, as I've been campaigning around the state.

And one of the things that I think is really important to note tonight is that we don't actually have an authorized farm bill.

It's because of career politicians like my opponent who can't seem to keep the government open, who can't seem to raise the debt ceiling.

And every five years, every five years they're supposed to pass a farm bill, and we don't have one right now.

How incredible is that?

One of North Dakota's most important industries does not have an authorized federal farm bill.

But if we were to have one, and we will when I go to DC, we need to make sure that we adjust those reference prices so that our growers are doing okay.

We need to make sure that we have dual enrollment for PLC and ARC programs.

And most importantly, we need to reinstate country of origin labeling.

My opponent voted to repeal country of origin labeling for beef and pork in 2015.

And when he did that, he put our national security at risk because a country cannot have national security without food security.

- Senator Cramer, response - Sure, first of all, the reason we don't have a farm bill is because the Democratic chairman in the Senate, Debbie Stabenow, she did, really, the cardinal sin of farm bills.

In the middle of the farm bill they changed the baselines on the non-farm parts of the farm bill.

They added so much money.

This is part of IRA and the American Rescue Plan that fueled inflation.

They now have SNAP at 80% of the farm bill.

SNAP has nothing to do with farmers.

This is an important program.

But that changed the baseline, diluting the money that goes to the farmers.

Then she added a whole bunch on the conservation title, which she calls the climate change title, the conservation title, which makes the conservation title now the same amount of money as the crop insurance program.

I agree with Katrina on this.

We need to raise those reference prices.

They've got to reflect the modern costs of an additional, what?

25, 30% of input costs because of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris's inflation.

Those input costs have gone way, way up.

So we need to do that.

And we also need a robust crop insurance program that provides a little more of a subsidy, frankly, premium subsidy, again, to reflect the risk because that's what the banker needs.

The banker needs to know that they'll get paid back in case of a disaster.

With regard to the country of origin labeling, we had to repeal it because it was not WTO compliant.

So she says it was a national security risk.

We were running a major cost risk for our producers if we allowed the WTO to fine them for being in non-compliance with the trade deal with the other WTO countries - [Matt] Response, Katrina Christiansen.

- Yeah, I think Senator Cramer's upset that he turned his back on North Dakota ranchers.

In 2015 when he voted to repeal the country of origin labeling for our beef and pork, consumers don't know where they're getting their meat from, first of all.

That's something that's important to point out here.

But he took $6,000 from the National Cattleman's Beef Association in 2015.

Now that's perfectly legal, but that doesn't make it right.

That's not a North Dakota value.

We have almost 8,000 independent ranchers here in North Dakota, and since we don't have country of origin labeling, they've lost out on about 35% margin.

You know, that's an incredible amount of money for independent beef producers.

And I will always support our beef producers.

That's the first bill I'm gonna introduce when I go to DC.

- Okay, last word on this, Senator Cramer.

- So, these awful National Cattleman Beef Association are the 8,000 ranchers she's talking about.

You don't get to, on the one hand be against them, and on the other hand before them.

This is not a unifying message, even within ranch country because most North Dakota ranchers want access to the markets that they want access to.

The legislation she's talking about would actually prohibit them from having that freedom.

We need to make sure that our ranchers can market the way they want.

I've been a major sponsor, in fact, lead the introducer of legislation to knock down the barriers for more opportunities to market our beef, as well as other products.

This is an ongoing fight.

It will eventually get settled probably somewhere in the middle of the two positions that we're talking about right now.

- Move on to the next question.

Comes from our co-sponsors, AARP North Dakota.

The Social Security Trust fund is expected to see a shortfall in 10 years.

If congress doesn't act, millions of Americans who are counting on Social Security will see cuts to the money they've earned.

Do you see a path for Congress to work on a bipartisan solution to protect Social Security for those who have earned it?

Senator Cramer, you start this time.

- I do.

I just recently received for the, I dunno, second or third time, but just this year, the Fiscal Hero Award, specifically for my work in this area.

It's an award that comes from the Citizens for a Responsible Budget that is awarded to people as conservative as Mike Braun and James Langford and as liberal as Sheldon Whitehouse and Jeanne Shaheen.

It doesn't go to a lot of us, but it goes to us because we're willing to have this discussion that in a little bit you're going to hear demagogued because that's the rich tradition as to somehow say, you know, Cramer and the Republicans are gonna throw grandma over the cliff.

We can get this done, and we can do it, but we have to put everything on the table.

Now she's gonna say, I'm for cutting benefits.

Here's what I suggest.

What I think we ought to do is take a serious look at the retirement age.

Right now, if you're my age, there are people that have a lower number than this, but at 67 years of age, you can get full benefits.

I say let's look at 10 years out from now.

Let's start adding maybe one month a year for six years.

You know, I think it recognizes the longevity of life.

The other thing we can do is look at raising the cap of eligible income that is taxed for FICA.

Right now it's about 168,000.

I think we can raise that and we can do it over the course of time.

Now, my right wing friends say, "That's a tax increase."

My left wing friends will say I'm cutting benefits.

Both are doable.

- [Matt] Katrina Christiansen, response.

- You know, I think one of the things that I think about when I think about Social Security is this widow that I met when I was campaigning earlier this summer.

And she told me this story about how she became a widow with a 2-year-old and how Social Security benefits for her were a family benefit.

They helped her figure out...

They gave her time to grieve and figure out what she was gonna do with her life.

And I think it's really important that we always protect Social Security.

If you send me to DC, I will not let Social security be privatized.

I will not let it be sunset.

You know, my opponent here claimed to have been bipartisan, yet he didn't vote for the bipartisan border bill, and he claims we can get this done.

We just talked about the fact that there is no authorized farm bill right now.

The reality is we need somebody who has a record of getting things done, like I've done in the private sector on really short timelines or long ones.

We can increase the wage for Social Security income taxes.

A person that makes 147,000 a year always pays 6.2%.

But a millionaire, somebody who makes $1 million a year, only pays 1%.

And I think we can correct that.

I think we can remove the cap and save Social Security in perpetuity.

- Senator Cramer, response.

- So, that wasn't much of a solution.

I'm with her.

I think we can certainly raise that cap and we can index it.

We can continue to raise it a little bit each year.

You can't do anything overly abrupt because in order to make Social Security whole, remember, I think she skipped this part of the question, it's insolvent in nine years, not 10 anymore.

It's now nine years.

And to make it solvent for the 75 year projection would require today a 28% tax increase on the taxable income or a 21.3% benefit cut.

Neither one of those are tenable, Matt.

And by the way, with regard to bipartisan solutions, I am the only North Dakota Republican in history that I know of and the only Republican senator last Congress that received the bipartisan Policy Council's Award for Legislative Action because of things like this.

That's the same reason I've received the Fiscal Hero Award for things like this, because I do sit at the table because I do solve problems.

And by the way, the bipartisan infrastructure bill, I helped write.

In fact, probably had more fingerprints on that bill than any other member of the United States Senate, at least in the transportation subcommittee that I co-chair.

- Okay, last word on this, Katrina Christiansen.

- I just think North Dakota, we can do better.

We can send somebody to Washington DC that understands that one in six North Dakotans are seniors.

My opponent voted against capping prescription drug prices for Medicare recipients.

Those are senior citizens.

I will never turn my back on the seniors in North Dakota.

And I just wanna point out one small thing.

He keeps bringing up this Fiscal Hero Award.

I'm not sure if it was a joke or not because since Senator Cramer's been in the Congress, the debt has increased $20 trillion.

- Alright, let's do a second question from AARP North Dakota.

48 million Americans help their loved ones each day to remain independent in their homes and communities.

These family caregivers sacrifice time and money and provide 600 billion annually in unpaid support.

How would you help family caregivers?

And Katrina Christiansen, you start this time.

- You know, Matt, this is a really serious topic.

When I was in Kenmare on Monday night, I had the opportunity to meet this woman, and she told me about her experience taking care of her partner, her husband, who had Parkinson's and Crohn's disease.

And she was able to keep him at home for about a year, but then she had to put him in a nursing home.

She just couldn't do the care anymore, and she had to sell $500,000 worth of farmland to pay for that care.

She gave away part of her children's inheritance.

And I think what's lacking in our discussion about elder care is knowing these faces.

I spoke to a woman in Bismarck who had been at home for two weeks taking care of her husband.

And I think what we need is we need to make sure that those caregivers have respite, that they're also able to probably continue to earn some Social Security while they're taking unpaid leave taking care of family members.

We need somebody who's willing to get innovative with solutions, and talk to people, and try to understand the different sorts of solutions we need for different sorts of caregivers and family problems.

- Senator Cramer, response.

- So this is an area where I agree just about with everything she just said and have worked very closely, particularly on the Veterans Affairs Committee.

It is untenable to me that somebody could be, and this is an important point, not just providing compassionate care for their loved one, but literally saving the taxpayers of the country money doing so.

That deserves the same financial reward as they're providing for us.

And I've worked hard on legislation to do exactly that where there haven't been enough people at this point to push the issue.

But we pushed it hard with CMS.

And by the way, with regard to the caps on prices, so you're right, I voted against an arbitrary cap on drugs.

But since that happened, the premiums of the insurance to cover those drugs have gone skyrocketed, 382% in one case.

In fact, the money to pay for some of that stuff was taken out of Medicare, which was scheduled to go insolvent in 2036, probably escalated that timeline.

The most recent bid for Medicare Part D was an 85% increase.

The most recent premium increase was 30 or 35% increase.

You cannot simply shift the cost and expect the price to actually come down.

- [Matt] Katrina Christiansen.

- So I think Kevin has forgotten who he represents.

Like I said before, one in six North Dakotans is a senior citizen.

And the CBO, the budget office for the federal government, estimates that capping prescription drug prices for our seniors is actually going to save over a hundred billion dollars.

That's an incredible amount of savings for taxpayers.

And so I would've voted to cap prescription drug prices.

In fact, yesterday when I was in Minot, I met a younger gentleman who had diabetes and he had lost vision because he was having to ration his insulin.

It was $1,500 a month, and he's lost 70% of his vision.

And my opponent voted against capping insulin prices at $35 an hour.

I just think he's changed since he went to DC.

It's time we send someone else who's willing to remember who North Dakotans are and what North Dakotan values are.

- [Matt] Last word on this, Senator Cramer.

- So this is great rhetoric.

As you notice, she's got a little bit of a cadence going, you know, a little bit of rhetoric.

But the facts matter, Matt, and it isn't a hundred billion by the way.

They're claiming 60 billion now.

Or 6 billion, I mean, that's saved.

And by the way, that's not from all 10 drugs that were on the list, but rather only three that they've done that are creating these, quote, "savings."

But these "savings" are being taken out of Medicare.

So in other words, you take the money out of Medicare and then pay somebody else over here.

You're not saving anything.

You're just shifting the burden.

And frankly, it's irresponsible.

We need a much more thorough solution than the simple, you know, talking points from the Democratic party on this.

This is serious stuff.

And to consider that Medicare is going to be insolvent in about 11 or 12 years, if we continue down this path.

So I think there's more to be done for sure.

But arbitrary price caps without a pay for is not the solution.

- Okay, we need to move to foreign policy.

What are each of your views on two huge issues right now, the Russia-Ukraine War, and also the Israel-Hamas conflict engulfing Gaza?

Senator Cramer, you start us off on this one.

- Absolutely.

Well, first of all, there should be no mistaking that these two wars are the direct result of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris's pathetic, botched withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Donald Trump had a deal with the Taliban, with benchmarks they had to meet in order for us to withdraw.

They never met them, but Joe Biden couldn't wait to get outta there and take some credit.

Well, he got credit, all right.

He got blame, and he projected weakness.

And that projection of weakness is exactly why Vladimir Putin felt empowered to take on Ukraine.

It's exactly why Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran feels emboldened not just to take on Israel, but to take on the United States of America in the Red Sea, in Jordan, in Iraq.

They're brazen about it.

So I think we need to do a lot.

I think the world's safer when America's strong.

I think that we owe it as a matter of contract through the Budapest Memorandum, as well as our role in NATO, to defend Ukraine, to do everything we can.

I think that Joe Biden has been trickling out a little bit of aid here and there with the expectation of a soft defeat.

Ridiculous.

Ukraine needs to win this war and needs to drive Putin back.

And we need to do everything we can to help Israel, including providing the weapon systems to use any way they see fit to take out Iran and Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis.

- Katrina Christiansen.

- Yes.

I think we just heard some DC talking points there.

The reality is, I'm a history buff, and one of the scariest books that I have ever read was "Midnight at Chernobyl."

Like there were times when I had to put it down.

The most important thing, in terms of protecting democracy right now, is making sure that a blood thirsty dictator does not succeed in Ukraine.

It is important to our national security interests that we continue to support Ukraine and defeat Russia because Putin won't stop there.

He'll spread his attacks to other places in Europe.

And if we allow that to happen, we allow other bad actors to start behaving badly, China wins, North Korea wins, Iran wins.

And it's really important that we put our support behind Ukraine because that puts America first.

That allows us to focus on our future where we wanna be innovative, we wanna grow, we wanna do amazing things.

I do not want to see people like my son who's 16 be enlisted to go fight in another World War.

It's incredibly important that we stand with Ukraine.

- [Matt] Senator Cramer, response.

- So, I think she just basically said what I said.

We've gotta stand up through Ukraine because we have a moral obligation, we have a contractual obligation, and it's what's best for the United States and certainly for the NATO alliance.

We do have to make our NATO allies do more.

And they've been stepping up.

They started when Donald Trump insisted on it.

At the same time, you know, Hamas and every dictator in the world is watching how pathetic our response has been to Ukraine because this president gives him weapons, and that says, "but you can't use them in these ways."

Or he says, "We are gonna get F-16s.

Oh, but wait for a couple of years.

We need to train the pilots."

There's a total disconnect.

And, and so yeah, we need to bring peace through strength to all parts of the world, but we cannot do that under current leadership in this country because he projects weakness.

Just today, he's already calling on Israel to only respond to the Iranian attacks of 200 ballistic missiles just the other day in a proportionate way.

Can you imagine such a thing?

Proportional?

So in other words, if they shoot one missile, you can shoot one back.

How about we wipe them out?

The only ceasefire that we should accept is a white flag hanging over Theran.

They want us eliminated.

They want Israel eliminated.

We should take care of it.

We should make sure that we get a white flag over Theran.

And we can do that, by the way, with peaceful means, by taking out their oil supplies.

They were all but broke when Joe Biden came into office.

He unleashed their ability to sell their oil.

They sold it to not just anybody, to our enemies, emboldening Russia, emboldening China, and then filling the coffers to kill Americans and Israelis.

- Last word, and then we'll move on.

- I appreciate that.

I think Senator Cramer kind of jumbled up some things there.

I think the important thing here is that when it comes to the conflict with Israel and Hamas, the most important thing that we need to have right now is a deescalation of all the escalations.

Innocent people are dying.

The hostages haven't come home.

And what we need is a ceasefire.

And then, we need to start to peel back that healing process.

That peace process can be at center, but not until we have a ceasefire.

And so those are the things that we need to focus on.

- Alright, let's move to the energy industry.

So crucial in North Dakota.

Energy independence for our nation.

Tell me each of your views on how to expand North Dakota's energy industry.

And how do fossil fuels and renewable energy play into that?

Katrina Christiansen, you start us off this time.

- Yes, so I'm a North Dakotan, and so I understand just how important our energy economy is.

I've had the opportunity to work in an ethanol plant.

I climbed in so many unit operations in my first job as a plant engineer.

And I get it.

Natural gas made steam for our ethanol plant.

It ran our reboilers that helped us distill the ethanol.

It was an incredible learning opportunity.

And so what I think is really exciting about North Dakota is we have so much natural gas.

It's such a good fuel.

It has a lot of energy in it.

And we can do so many things with it.

So I think the opportunity is to continue to invest in North Dakota's all-of-the-above energy policy.

And we should invest in things.

We love capitalism in North Dakota, and we are always changing what we're doing.

We're always learning.

We're always growing.

And there's such an opportunity with new technologies coming online.

I just want us to participate in that and continue to win and grow North Dakota's energy economy.

- [Matt] Senator Cramer, response.

- That was a nice happy-talk, little speech, but there are serious problems.

She didn't address a single federal issue.

And the federal government is the thing standing in the way of these investments that she's talking about.

It's why we don't have permitting reform.

The federal government, this administration has banned liquid natural gas terminals from being built to export natural gas.

We provide the cleanest natural gas in the world.

Vladimir Putin's natural gas is 50% dirtier than America's, and yet Joe Biden has transferred his climate guilt to Russia to meet the demands of Europe.

I'd much rather use the peaceful tools of energy development than the weapons of war every day of the week.

You wanna really make America's entire economies sing, take a lesson from North Dakota.

The problem is the federal government.

It's the bureaucracy.

This is why overturning North Dakota versus EPA or finding for North Dakota in North Dakota versus EPA, overturning the Obama rule, this is why Waters of the United States being overturned that freed up about 90% of what were considered federally jurisdictional waters or lands in the country was so important.

And this is why the Chevron Doctrine, overturning that was so critical because the agencies were making laws where laws don't exist.

Same thing with the Major Questions doctrine.

And the Supreme Court said, you don't have authority that wasn't granted you by Congress.

Now if we can get rid of all that bureaucracy, North Dakota can lead the way.

They already do in many respects.

Look, I was an energy regulator for nine years in North Dakota.

I oversaw about 2,000 megawatts of wind development in North Dakota.

I've cited lots of pipelines, including the original Keystone pipeline.

600 landowner's land.

Not a single inch of it had to be condemned or taken through through eminent domain.

North Dakota does it right.

The problem is North Dakota's problem is the federal government standing in its way.

- Katrina Christiansen with a response.

- So when I listened to Senator Cramer's answer there, I heard the federal government come up as the problem multiple times.

Kevin, I think you've been in the federal government for over a decade now.

And so I'm struggling to understand why North Dakotans should continue to send someone who has so much trouble changing the rules and improving the opportunity for North Dakotans.

I think it's really clear up here.

I think Kevin had really great intentions when he went to DC, but it's time that we have somebody who has problem solving experience, that understands return on investment, that understands energy projects.

I worked on capital projects that were over millions of dollars.

I get the sorts of things that we need to do to grow our energy economy.

- [Matt] Last word on this, Senator Cramer.

- So I need to help her now 'cause she says that I've been in the federal government for 10 years.

I've been an elected representative for North Dakota in the Congress of the United States for 12 years.

The federal government executive branch is the problem that had been creating all of these barriers.

I mean, it was Joe Biden that absolutely put a ban on drilling on federal lands and out offshore.

Of course, that was overturned by a judge as well, finally.

But then they started just allowing the bare minimum of the least productive areas to be bid out for drilling and exploration.

The problem is the executive branch, not the elected branch, by the way, not the congressional branch, but the federal bureaucracy that's gotten way too big, way too expensive, way too powerful, and way too out of touch with what matters and what we can do so well.

You guys, we produce the cleanest energy in the world.

If we care about climate, if we care about greenhouse gas emissions, we should drill more in North Dakota, we should produce more oil, more gas, more wind, more solar, if that's what it takes.

Whatever we can produce in North Dakota, we gotta unleash the innovators and do it.

But we've gotta get the federal government out of the way.

- Yeah, I wanna throw both of you a little curve ball here for the next topic.

It's more of a statewide legislative issue, but it's getting a lot of attention.

I want to get you both on the record, your thoughts on ballot measure number four, which would eliminate property taxes in North Dakota.

One response from each of you.

Senator Cramer, you go first.

- I mean, I'm gonna be honest, Matt.

I'm actually undecided about it.

I've been talking to a lot of people.

I've been studying it closely.

I know how much my property taxes are and how much they go up.

I think there'd be a consequence to passing measure number four that some people maybe don't believe.

At the same time, the elected leaders in Bismarck have had the opportunity to try and fix it.

So I don't know how this is gonna play out to be honest with you.

Tonight I really am undecided.

But as you can probably tell by my answer, I'm probably leaning to supporting it, quite honestly, because I think you need to do something big to get change that the people of North Dakota are demanding.

- [Matt] Katrina Christiansen.

- You know, I have three kids in Jamestown.

I have a kid in high school, and middle school, and a kid in elementary school.

And one of the things that I love about living in Jamestown is I get to know the teachers.

I get to know them really well.

My kids all went to the same elementary school, and I know that this is a stressor for them.

They're really worried about what happens if measure four passes.

And I am too.

I don't like paying property taxes.

When I told my parents what we paid, they were incredibly shocked.

They said, "Oh, you have all that oil money."

Yeah, but they've never met any of the legislatures that are in the super majority from Bismarck.

We need to deal with the property tax issue, and there are solutions.

Okay, but I'm not sure that measure four is the thing.

I value the public employees.

I value the people who plow snow every blizzard.

I mean, I appreciate them so much.

I just, I don't think I can vote yes on this, but I can be vocal about the fact that we do need comprehensive property tax reform because I know so many seniors who live on fixed incomes and are so frustrated with the lack of response in Bismarck to their cries for help.

- Alright, we have time for a couple more topics.

I wanna try to get to a couple more.

Question about North Dakota's public schools.

Teachers are leaving, or retiring, or quitting.

We hear this all the time with the profession.

Some buildings are aging.

Funding is always an issue.

What are each your views and solutions on funding for public schools and retaining teachers in the state?

Katrina Christiansen, you start first.

- This is a really great question.

I'm so glad you asked.

Actually, one of the reasons that I decided to become a politician to run for federal office is because I was really worried about the funding in my son's school.

After the pandemic, there weren't the resources.

Currently, there's not a speech teacher in my son's school in person.

At my son's high school, there isn't a Spanish teacher.

Last year he took it online, and it was so frustrating for him.

It was really discouraging to see him struggle with that class online.

And so I think what we need to do is recognize the power of the federal government.

We can fully fund education.

There are things that we can do to help out the state of North Dakota to help our teachers to help our students.

We can fully fund special education.

We haven't fully funded since we passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in the '80s.

We've never done that.

We need to do that.

We also need to increase our funding for Title I spending.

You know, four out of the five elementary schools in Jamestown are Title I wide schools.

This is how I can help my community.

I look forward to it.

- [Matt] Senator Cramer, response.

Well, first of all, you've brought up another state and local issue in the context of a federal debate.

And there's an awful lot of federal money that goes to our local school districts through the state.

The last thing that I'd wanna do is federalize our local education system, which is exactly what she just advocated for, because none of that federal money ever comes with no strings attached.

They come with lots of strings attached.

And in fact, in some cases, in fact, I hear more from superintendents about how can we get rid of the bureaucracy and just get the money.

I think we can block grant money from the federal government to the states for distribution to the local schools in a way that makes sense for the local schools and for the state.

But the last thing you want is a top down federal government issued... And by the way, we have a $35 trillion debt that we're coming up on.

We can't fund every issue in the state of North Dakota throughout the country.

We have to start making the hard choices at a time when our interest on our debt is now gonna be greater than our national defense budget, at a time when the world's on fire and needs America's leadership.

- Right, got time for probably one more topic here.

North Dakota's largest City, Fargo, has seen its homeless situation and population getting worse the last few years.

Bismarck's now looking at an encampment measure as well.

What are the solutions, if any, from a federal level to these problems within Fargo and Bismarck?

Senator Cramer, you start.

- Well first of all, for the most part, there are local and state solutions and there need to be.

These are community issues, but what role could the federal government play?

One of the areas that I've worked hard on in the Banking and Housing and Urban Development Committee with my friend Chris Coons, a democrat from from Delaware, is sort of changing our Section 8 low income housing program to incentivize more building of infrastructure that can house people at a lower income level that's heavily subsidized.

And, this doesn't subsidize the landlords, so to speak, but it does reduce the burden of regulation and the things that really, frankly, make it unprofitable for people to build more low income housing.

That's one area.

Beyond that, what we need to do is let charities be charitable.

We need to have a tax code that rewards community activities like this.

Instead of punishing good behavior, we ought to be rewarding good behavior.

But the last thing again you need from us is a federal agency giving you both the money and the directions and how to spend it.

- Katrina Christiansen, - You know, I think with this question, one of the things that we have to do is kind of remove those prejudices we might have when the topic of homelessness comes up.

And instead, as an engineer, I would focus on the data.

And the data says that, really, the thing that works is actually closing the income gap to the rental prices.

So when you're able to help people who aren't making enough to afford housing, that solves some of the homelessness problem.

The other thing that you need to do is make sure that those people have access to the resources to support them to continue to stay in that.

And the third thing that we need to do is address the venture capitalists and the individuals who are colluding in the rental market to raise prices.

The DOJ just issued a lawsuit against a software company that was allowing renters to collude and raise prices.

When I was in Fargo earlier this year, I talked to a woman, she was on a fixed income, she'd retired, and her rent went up $500 a month.

That is completely unacceptable.

So I think Senator Cramer, when he talks about the problems with the federal government, I'm not sure he realizes he's a senator and he sets those rules.

And so we need to deal with the antitrust.

We need to deal with the collusion.

And we need to look at the data, and propose solutions, and fund them.

That's the power of the federal government, and address them.

- $35 trillion debt.

- We have to get to closing statements.

You can do it here.

We are out of time.

So closing statements start.

Senator Cramer, you have your one minute close.

Go ahead.

- Yeah, thank you again, Matt, and Dave, and AARP, and Prairie Public.

Katrina Christiansen, thank you for this opportunity.

Look, I'm asking for reelection.

I've been a senator for one term.

The United States Senate is a place that respects and actually honors a second term, that seniority that you get with a gavel.

And I'd have two of them if Republicans regain the majority, particularly in the national defense arena, as well as the infrastructure environment, public works arena, two very important areas for North Dakota.

And with that comes a more opportunity to persuade, more opportunity to introduce, more opportunity to set the agenda.

And, you know me, I've been with you for a long time.

I've always had your back.

You've always had mine as voters and citizens of this great state.

I love my Lord.

I love my state.

I love my family.

I have six grandchildren that live here in North Dakota.

All of my kids live here in North Dakota.

I plan to live in North Dakota the rest of my life.

Spend occasional weeks in Washington DC when the duty calls, but, for me, it's always all about North Dakota - Closing statement, Katrina Christiansen.

- Thank you, Matt.

I appreciate that.

Thank you, Senator Cramer.

Most importantly, I wanna thank Max, my husband, my three kids, Henry, Vivian, and Hans.

You have been so incredible and supportive of me running and campaigning for a whole year.

You are my whole world, and I love you so much.

So I've had the opportunity to go to all 53 counties in North Dakota, and I've talked to independents, and I've talked to Republicans, and I've talked to Democrats, and I've concluded that when President Kennedy said, "Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, that we all breathe the same air, that we all cherish our children's future, and that we're all mortal."

This is so true, and this is why we can't let our differences divide us.

My opponent works to stoke divisions, but you can send someone to DC who's gonna fight for you, and your family, and your community, and that's who all serve in DC, not a party.

It's time to send Kevin home.

- Thank you for both for appearing in this important debate.

I wanna thank my guests again, Senator Kevin Cramer and Katrina Christiansen.

A reminder, election day is November 5th.

Early voting starts soon, so please do that.

My thanks again to AARP North Dakota and Prairie Public for tuning in to this wonderful debate.

I'm Matt Olien.

Goodnight.

(inspiring music) (inspiring music fades out) - [Announcer] Funding for election 2024 coverage is provided in part by AARP, a nonprofit, nonpartisan, membership association, 83,000 strong in North Dakota.

Find information on how to make your voice heard in the 2024 election at aarp.org/ndvotes.

And by the members of Prairie Public.