Major funding for election 2026 Arkansas TV debates is provided by the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce.

From the campus of the University of Central Arkansas in the studios of Arkansas TV, it's election 2026 Arkansas TV debates about you.

In five, four, three, two one.

And hello everyone, and welcome to Debate Week here on Arkansas TV.

At this hour, the candidates for Congress in Arkansas's fourth district.

And they are, in alphabetical order, James Russell, the Democratic candidate, and Bruce Westerman, the Republican Party nominee and the incumbent, questioning the candidates this hour, Cindy Langston of Kctv e KRG, El Dorado, Yuna Lee of 4029, in Fayetteville.

And I see moral of the Pine Bluff commercial.

And now a few rules.

Each nominee will have one minute to respond to questions.

The candidates will have 30s for rebuttal if they choose.

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

Now, the order of candidate appearances was determined prior to the broadcast with a coin toss which was observed by the candidates or their representatives.

And now, with that little bit of housekeeping, time to begin.

Our first question is from A.C.

Morrell of the Pine Bluff Commercial for Mister Westerman.

Yes.

Thanks a lot, Steve.

Mister Westman, high gas prices in the United States have been linked to the supply distribution in the war with Iran.

Do you agree with how President Trump has been handling the war?

Or as a congressman?

Will you offer a different solution?

Well, thank you, AC, and thank you to Arkansas PBS for hosting another debate series this year.

Gas prices are high.

But I think you got to look at the big picture I ran was at the point of developing a nuclear weapon.

And they are not developing a nuclear weapon.

Just as a deterrent, they're developing one to use it.

They call Israel the little Satan.

They call us the big Satan.

And if that weapon were to be used, gas prices would be much higher than they are now.

Although gas prices are high, they're only slightly higher than they were under the Biden administration when we were at peace.

I will say that this Congress, and especially the work that I've done on the Natural Resources Committee, has worked to unleash American energy.

It takes time to develop the infrastructure.

We in the big, beautiful bill, require Leigh sales in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska and on other onshore, deposits.

We've also developed, policy for other forms of energy that will be put in place.

Thank you, sir.

Mr.

Russell, one minute.

Thank you very much for the question.

And thank you for hosting this event.

The war in Iran has been predicated on the need to prevent a nuclear, nuclear armed Iran.

The problem being, we already had a nuclear deal that was in place under President Obama that was making sure that things were taken care of.

We then bombed them domestic drastically and eliminated a mountain chain and claimed that we were victorious there and eliminated their nuclear program.

We then engaged in further military conflict repeatedly, each time claiming victory and claiming to set back their nuclear program, each time without any actual evidence of this.

What's happened is a gluttonous hour, a disruption in the supply chain that has driven up prices worldwide and that Arkansas consumers are seeing as a problem every single day in their lives.

What we need is a return to diplomatic solutions, not military solutions, so that we can get the economy under control on a global status and to drive down prices for everyday consumers.

Here in the fourth district.

We go back to Mr.

Westerman for 30s.

I'll just say that diplomatic solutions have not worked with Iran and I don't think they will work.

We've been trying to do a diplomatic solution since 1979.

If you want to talk about never ending wars, they've been waging one against us and against our allies, for a long, long time.

They when they say from the river to the sea, they're talking about annihilating Israel.

They understand one thing, and it's unfortunately, they understand.

Kill or be killed.

And I'm not saying that's the people of Iran.

That's the leadership of Iran.

And they need to go.

Mr.

Russell, you have another 30.

Having been through this since 1979, that being the majority of my life, we have seen diplomatic solutions maintain peace within the region and stabilize.

We have been the military aggressors repeatedly, and that needs to stop.

We have sought regime change even though it was unnecessary.

We need to again seek out diplomatic solutions to ensure the safety of everyone across the globe and here at home.

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

Russell.

Well, Mr.

Russell, how would you balance border security and immigration enforcement with the needs of Arkansas farmers and employers who rely on immigrant workers, including in agriculture and food processing in our area?

Thank you for that question.

First and foremost, I think that what we need to concentrate on with regards to immigration is further investment in our administration and our ability to run the background checks, to process the incoming immigrants and to work with the system rather than putting out an armed masked police force on the streets, which are terrorizing our cities on a daily basis.

We have seen violations of the Fourth Amendment.

We have seen mass incarcerations without any justification.

What we need to do is actually invest in policies that allow us to protect the citizenry through our existing law enforcement officers, while providing for an increased capacity and running the background checks and processing the paperwork, and then allowing those people who are seeking to become American citizens and seek a better life for themselves and their family, to actually achieve and live out that American dream that has built this nation from day one.

Mr.

Westerman one minute.

So first off, I want to say that before, two years ago, our border was open.

Like I see it.

Now our border is closed.

Solid.

We're not having illegal immigrants come through.

And we're also what goes with that is drug trafficking and human trafficking.

That's been stopped.

We do need to revise our immigration system.

Now that we've got the border secure and we've got operational security of the border and physical security of the border.

We need to create an immigration system that I believe.

One thing we could do is offer.

If you're here and you came here illegally, turn yourself in.

Sign up.

Pay a fee.

You don't get citizenship, but you give the ability to stay here and travel back to your, country of origin.

The other thing we need to do is increase the guest worker visas, H-2a, h-2b that are important for forestry and other types of work.

Those are legal components of our immigration system that are working well.

We need to increase the numbers on those so that our farmers and foresters and everybody else can benefit.

Mr.. Russell 30s.

As stated, we do rely on the immigrant population for so much of our agricultural industry and forestry, and we do need to make sure that those programs are being enforced.

But we have to make sure that those people who are here legally under those programs aren't being criminalized and demonized while these things are being carried out.

Again, the process needs to be one of actual administration and following up and procedural development, not criminalization and demonization of someone else.

Back to you, Mr.

Westerman.

30s.

I just want to elaborate a little bit more on a program that I think would work.

There is legislation being drafted that I support and is to allow people that are here that maybe came here illegally, that are working there, not they don't have a criminal record.

Let them come out of the shadows, register, pay a fee and stay here to work.

But if they break the law, that means they're automatically gone.

If they don't sign up and they get caught, they're automatically deported.

I think that's the system that works and gives people dignity and, with through restitution, Cindy Langston has our next question.

Goes first to Mr.

Westerman.

Congressman.

Eldorado.

Magnolia hospitals joined Baptist Health this year.

While Camden's hospital has reduced services and converted to a rural emergency hospital only.

Now, what specific federal policy would you pursue to keep rural hospitals financially viable and ensure timely access to higher level care for residents and workers, specifically in the Camden defense industry and in rural Arkansas?

Great question.

Thank you.

Cindy.

Rural health care across Arkansas, especially in the fourth district and across the country, is being hit very hard right now.

The health care system in our country is messed up from top to bottom.

The federal government, the American taxpayer $2.71 trillion last year on health care out of 5.3 trillion.

So the majority of health care costs are being paid by the federal government.

We've seen health care costs do nothing but go up since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, which was anything but affordable.

I have a bill called the Fair Care Act, that I've written this bill and filed it several years.

It's got a lot of bipartisan policies in it.

We can only fix health care through a bipartisan program.

Now, we'll see in the big, beautiful bill, we put $50 billion for rural health care transformation.

Every Democrat voted against that.

Arkansas is benefiting greatly for it.

We need to rethink the way we do health care in rural Arkansas.

And they've got the seed money to do that.

Mr.

Russell, you have one minute.

You are correct.

And that the Affordable Care Act was a step in the right direction, but was not a perfect solution.

It was simply the best thing that we could get passed at the time.

And I am one of the people that actually benefit from that.

The passage of the ACA allowed me to get health insurance for the first time in my adult life.

However, here recently it has become more and more of a problem as we've seen increased cost in health care.

One solution for that, as was proposed by Yale Medical University last month, was they switch to a single payer Medicare for all system would actually result in saving the nation over $1 trillion every single year, along with saving over 114,000 lives annually and preventable deaths.

Again, the ACA was a step in the right direction, but we need to take it a step further and ensure that every American citizen is actually covered, because it does this while not costing anyone, making under $200,000 a year one extra dime.

We can do this.

Every other developed nation on the planet has coverage for all of their citizens.

Surely the United States, the wealthiest nation on the planet, can do likewise.

Mr.. Westerman 30s.

So this idea of Medicare for all coming from the left is, First off, if would cost $32 trillion.

If it were put in place.

It would give the government more control.

If you think about it right now, every health care professionals actually working for the government and they're being managed by big insurance companies.

If you're a pharmacist, you're working for the government being managed by, pharmacy benefit managers.

We've got to get big government and big insurance out of the health care system, put more competition in it, and not, make it a federal program which has failed in many other countries.

Mr.. Russell 30s.

You're correct in that it is costing trillions.

And I say once again, that they switch over to a single payer system would save over $1 trillion on that actual bottom line.

It is a problem of big insurance, because what we are seeing is a repeated, repeated concentration on on shareholder wealth and CEO wealth.

What we need to do is invest in the health of our people.

It is our taxpayer dollars.

We are investing that for the betterment of ourselves as a society, and we need to actually see a return on that investment in real time.

Thank you sir.

Mr.

Morelle has our next question, and, we go first to Mr.. It goes to Mr.

Russell.

Yes, sir.

So a senator from North Carolina argued against President Trump striking a deal with Russia for more oil to relieve high prices of fuel here in the United States.

Do you agree with President Trump's deal with Russia?

I do not.

I do understand that we need to take some measures to bring prices under control, but striking a deal with one of our oldest adversaries on the global scale is 100% wrong.

We have repeatedly tried to place sanctions on Russia.

We have repeatedly tried to help bring them in against their war of aggression against Ukraine, who seeks to be one of our allies on the global stage, going in and and supplying them with economic benefits by buying oil from them is simply the wrong direction to go.

We have other means that we could do.

There was the option to invest in, electrical and electrical vehicles.

Alternative energy sources.

We should have been doing that for many years already.

We certainly need to do it now.

Arkansas being the natural state, we should be leading the nation in finding alternative energy sources to reduce our energy dependance on any foreign nation overall.

Mr.

Westerman, you have one minute, sir.

Just recently, both houses of Congress passed the Lindsey Graham bill to put sanctions on Russia and Iran.

The president signed it.

And so, no, I don't agree with him agreeing to or saying he's going to purchase diesel fuel from Russia.

I don't think he's actually purchased any of that fuel yet, but I think it's in violation of the law that we just passed and that he signed.

And diesel prices are high, but a temporary effect from buying diesel fuel from Russia right here before the midterm election is not the way to go.

We need to put those sanctions in place, put pressure on Russia.

And also, he announced that Ukraine and Russia had a cease fire, but they're still firing at each other, firing at their energy infrastructure.

So I don't know if that was the premise on purchasing oil, but I think that's something he needs to come back to Congress and talk about since we passed a law.

And these are actually congressional sanctions and tariffs on oil coming from Russia.

Mr.

Russell, another 30s.

Not much shorter.

But since we do seem to agree on the issue that President Trump doesn't need to be seeking these things from, you know, seeking the oil from Russia.

But I do would like to take the opportunity to point out that this is an example where I would like to see Congress step up and actually hold President Trump accountable to following the letter of the law, rather than so many of the lawless policies that we've seen him trying to enact over time.

And Mr.

Westerman, another 30.

Again, I want to reiterate that part of the reason we're in this issue on energy is because of the failed energy policies of the Biden administration.

There's been a tremendous amount of good policy put in place to unleash American energy.

I'm proud to be the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, where most of that legislation passed through our committee.

Again, there's billions and billions of dollars being invested in energy infrastructure right now, all forms of energy.

We passed a geothermal energy bill that had huge bipartisan support.

It just takes time to build the infrastructure.

Next question goes first to Mr.

Westerman, and it's miss Lee.

Congressman Westerman, we're in a tight race in the tech race with other countries right now as artificial intelligence advances rapidly.

What specific, legislation will you support to protect Americans from its potential harms, while ensuring the United States remains a global leader in AI innovation?

So first off, we have to remain a global leader in AI innovation.

We are literally in a arms race, a Cold War scenario with China.

On who gets to superintelligence with AI first.

You can't have AI without data centers.

Everybody that has a smartphone uses her computer.

They're accessing a data center.

When they do that, data centers are not going away.

We have to figure out how to build them responsibly and how to build the energy infrastructure needed, to take care of those facilities without increasing rates on consumers.

So the key is to have good contracting as far as laws passed by Congress.

The problem with technology is it changes faster, much faster than the law can change.

So what we have to have are laws in place that when you misuse technology, you pay a price for misusing it.

Just like if you you misuse anything else to commit a crime or violence against someone else.

And we have to enforce those laws and hold people accountable when they misuse the technologies that's there.

One minute, Mr.

Russell.

I happen to agree with him on the majority of that.

We do actually need robust laws in place to actually protect against these tools being misused because data centers, AI, they are exactly that.

They are tools.

However, in the same way that a hammer can be used to build a house, a hammer can be used to assault someone.

We have to have legislation in place, and we have to have treaties in place with other countries to ensure that AI is being developed in the proper manner, with the proper restraint on it.

The burgeoning technology that goes between what we have current AI with your large language learning models, versus the idea of the superintelligence or machine consciousness that we're trying to approach, especially with the advent of quantum computing has, that has the potential for being disastrous in so many different ways.

We do need to be a technology leader in the world.

We need to maintain that.

But once again, we need to do that in concert with diplomacy and in concert with other people seeking to improve the lives of people while ensuring that data centers are not being put in places that are going to unfairly disadvantage people who are already in economically disadvantaged.

30s Mr.

Westerman, we have this mentality in our country anymore that's damaging things more than a data center innovation.

It harms our ability to manufacture and produce.

We used to call it Nimby, not in my backyard.

People want these things.

I just don't want them in their backyard.

But we're moving to an area of which I call bananas.

Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything.

We've got to get over that.

We've got to look at how we can positively participate in the economy, how Arkansas can benefit from these new technologies.

And I think we will see tremendous growth here if we do it smart.

Back to you, Mr.

Russell.

I agree that we absolutely do need the technology.

I simply I simply believe that we need to make sure that the local residents and municipalities have their say so that they can be sure that their property is protected, that their property values are taken care of.

And we also need to make sure that the consumers are not shouldering the costs of the infrastructure upgrades that are needed for these technologies.

That is considered a cost of doing business, and that is something that the companies should be shouldering, not the consumers.

Our next question comes from is Langston, who goes first to Mr.

Russell?

Mr.

Russell, you live in little Rock outside the fourth district, and you've said that you would move into the district if elected.

What have you learned directly from the people of South Arkansas that has changed your policy priorities?

And what concrete plan would you put in place to remain accessible in this large district?

Thank you so much.

Actually, again, I do plan on moving.

We've been looking at houses in the district as we've been around talking to people.

The majority of my discussions with people haven't really changed any of my policy decisions or if anything, they've reaffirmed them.

People are hurting.

People need help.

People need access to better jobs.

People need better education so that they can actually get the jobs that are coming down the pipeline.

You know, we just got done discussing technology and AI and data centers.

These are jobs that require specialized training.

They require people to actually have access to the education to do that.

We have so many people who no longer have access to the health care that they need, because of the rural health care deserts that are coming up.

The affordability, the grocery prices, everything from the top down.

I get told repeatedly going into these debates, keep it about kitchen table issues.

And the bottom line is every single issue we discuss is a kitchen table issue, because these are things that affect everyone, regardless of who you are or where you live in the fourth district.

And we have to make sure that everyone's needs are being addressed.

Mr.

Westerman, one minute.

I think that question was directed to Mr.

Russell.

All do some commentary on it.

A I was born and raised in the fourth district, just outside of Hot Springs.

Lived there all my life except for going to the University of Arkansas and my first job out of college at Roslin Foods in Stuttgart, and then to graduate school, in Connecticut.

Other than that, I've lived in the fourth district my whole life.

I am very familiar with the fourth district.

I travel all over the fourth district talking to constituents.

I can even tell you for the dead zones, for cell phone coverage are on the back roads of the fourth district, and believe me, there are way too many of those.

Mr.

Russell has the right to run for Congress without living in the district.

The Constitution doesn't cover that.

But the voters also have a right to pick someone that is from the district, that understands the district and has been fighting for the district.

You know, the traditional form of carpet bagging is you move in and then you run.

But this form is you.

If you were like me, I'll move to your district and represent you.

Mr.

Russell 30s.

The notion that I'm disconnected from the North fourth district, simply because of where I live right now, is basically unfounded.

My family originated my father's mother.

Her family founded Stevens, Arkansas.

My father's father was from Lewisville, Arkansas.

I lived down there shortly after graduating from high school.

I lived in Magnolia.

I've got an older son who still lives in Camden.

I'm still all over the district.

The notion that because my home is located 4.8 miles outside the district lines somehow disconnects me from the lived reality of constituents is simply false.

And Mr.

Westerman 30s.

So I don't believe the constituents in the fourth district feel like somebody living in little Rock is the one that could represent them best.

I think I've got a proven track record of fighting for the fourth district, understanding the issues.

I know the people, I know the area, and I'll continue fighting hard for the fourth district in the next Congress.

And before our next question, we want to let you know, remind you that the candidates will have the opportunity to participate in a press conference directly following the debate.

You can scan the QR code that's up on your screen now with your mobile device.

To watch that, press conference, get your mobiles ready.

You will see that QR code periodically through the balance of our debate QR code.

Our next question comes from Mr.

Morelle and goes first to the congressman.

Yes, sir.

Data from the U.S.

Department of Education and Agriculture have shown historically black land grant universities have been underfunded in 16 states, including Arkansas, between 1987 and 2020.

The margin of underfunding for Uapb was determined to be $331 million, according to that data.

Although some measures have been made to increase funding for all HBCUs in Arkansas on the gubernatorial and congressional levels, will you address this issue to fully fund Arkansas's Black land grant institution?

Look, Uapb is a gem.

It's a very vital part of the fourth district.

They do amazing things there.

I love going to Uapb and visiting with the professors and the students and seeing the work that they're doing there, expanding programs and engineering.

I've always been a supporter of Uapb.

I'm a member of the HBCU caucus.

As you mentioned, we have increased funding for HBCUs, but on a national level, we need to do more work there.

And, for doing what makes sense, not just throwing money at an issue, but putting money where it's going to get a good return for taxpayers.

Mr.

Russell, one minute.

To answer the question very directly, yes, I will do everything in my power to ensure that they are fully funded as need be.

Believe that actually investing in education is one of, if not the highest benefit to spending that we see in the country spending on education, investing in our populace, and making sure that everyone has the best education possible not only ensures that they are the best equipped to move forward in economic and economic matters, but also as a society.

An educated, well-educated and engaged society is the most vital thing to us maintaining our democracy, therefore ensuring spending in colleges, not simply throwing money at it, but looking at it on a hard, hard line, looking at the investment, looking at the return on that investment is absolutely the direction I would go.

And with HBCUs in particular, they deserve to be fully funded 100%.

30s Mr.

Wasserman, I'll just say it's sometimes it's the little things that matter and they're not really that little.

But in my bill, the Fix Our Forest Act, which passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support, there's one component in there called the Biochar Act, which dictates that if this goes into law, that land grant universities and HBCUs will work in conjunction with the forest Service and with the private sector to develop research and cooperative extension efforts for biochar for farmers, which would be very beneficial to uapb and to the state of Arkansas.

Another 30, Mr.

Russell.

Again, it is simply a matter of U of education being one of the most vital investments we can make in our people overall.

He Congressman Wes Run brings up the his bills to protect our environment.

I'd be concerned as far as what fight he's been doing, as far as the attacks we've seen on our national forests with the lumber and mining industries.

When that is also a part of our heritage, it needs to be protected, not privatized, and sold off on a short term gain.

New question.

Miss Lee goes first to Mr.

Russell.

Mr.

Russell, currently the United States is in part funding countries involved in wars from Ukraine and Russia, Iran and recently the war involving Israel.

What criteria should the U.S.

use when deciding whether to provide military or financial assistance to foreign countries?

Thank you very much.

While obviously we have alliances and treaties that do have to be observed, we have to hold ourselves responsible for how our aid is actually being used.

We need to look at what is being done with our weapons and with our funding.

That is going towards holding, towards engaging in combat in other places.

For example, sending aid to Ukraine is sending aid against an aggressor state who captured the Crimean peninsula and is seeking to gain further land with, you know, with Russia coming in.

However, we see other things where as with Israel on the Gaza Strip, we see what can be tantamount to genocide that we do not need to be funding.

That is blood on our hands.

We need, once again to seek out diplomatic relationships.

We need diplomatic solutions, and we need to engage in humanitarian efforts, not simply repeatedly engaging in military conflict or enabling military conflict to go unchecked.

Over to Mr.

Westerman.

One minute.

The answer to that question is when we consider foreign aid for other countries, especially when military aid is what is in the best interest of the United States.

And I think that's how those decisions are approached.

Ambassador Huckabee was here just last week, and he was talking about everything that we do.

And Israel is for the best interest of the United States.

It's often not seen that way.

And now you got this narrative talking about, genocide against Hamas, one of the terrorist organizations that Iran sponsors, along with Hezbollah and the Saudis.

They're just arms of the Iranian government that have been funded by Iran.

And you've got a group of people in our country that are saying that Israel protecting themselves, which let's not forget, on October the 7th, over 1200 Israeli citizens were murdered.

I saw the videos of it that the Israeli government confiscated from the terrorist who had GoPros on their head as they walked through town slaughtering people.

That is not genocide for Israel to protect themselves and we should be supporting it.

Mr.

Russell 30s.

There needs to be a clear distinction made between genocide being an attack on the Palestinian people versus acting in accordance with acting.

We're fighting back against terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Houthis, etc.

those are illegitimate government bodies.

They are not legal governing bodies.

They are terrorist organizations.

That is a clear distinction that needs to be made.

We need to be sure that our actions and our aid are being held in accord with the Geneva Convention and other rules of engagement, so that we do not find ourselves on the wrong side of history.

30s Mr.

Westerman.

Hamas controls Gaza.

Hamas are using the people of Gaza as human shields.

That's how sorry they are.

That's how low life they are.

They captured over 200 hostages, many of them Americans.

They took them back to Gaza.

They raped them, tortured and murdered them.

Those are American citizens.

Not just Israeli citizens.

It is not genocide going into Gaza and taking out Hamas.

And they shouldn't be using innocent humans as shields.

We turn again to Miss Langston on a question that goes first semester west of them.

Congressman.

Defense manufacturing is growing around Camden, but employers also need workers and housing and services and dependable local services.

What federal action would you prioritize to help make those things happen for nearby communities?

Support those, and of course, ensure long time residents that they share in those benefits.

Well, Camden and Palm Bluff Arsenal are two examples of some really big investments that have been happening.

I was down in Camden just last week for the R-2 is the Rosedale Raytheon partnership to make the Tamir missiles.

The over 10,000 of them have been used in Israel to intercept incoming missiles to the tiny little country of Israel.

This is important for Israel, for defense is important for our defense.

I think as the economy continues to grow, the services in those areas will grow.

We just had an announcement in Pine Bluff for home for defense USA, $2.2 billion project that out of the arsenal and there's room to put more projects at the Arsenal.

What I hear from people who are wanting to invest in those areas is they want to put more stuff at Holland Park in East Camden, at Pine Bluff Arsenal and in other places in Arkansas.

There's a huge, project happening with F-35s over in, Fort Smith just right outside the district as well.

To Mr.

Russell.

One minute.

While it is true that we are very reliant upon the defense and aerospace manufacturing industries for so much of our unemployment down in those regions, where is where has that been in the past ten years?

If we have if that's already been the case, if that's already what's going on?

Why have we not actually seen the benefit already?

We're addressing the need for additional housing.

We're addressing the need for additional workers.

Once again, this goes back to needing to provide for education, needing to provide for housing assistance needed, provide programs that will allow people to get in there and repopulate the area and stimulate growth in that area, rather than it being a place that people travel from elsewhere to come in to simply work.

It can't simply be an industrial hub.

It needs to once again be a community built around it.

We need to have programs that revitalize the downtown areas, revitalize the communities, and build the infrastructure up to see that increase in population that's commensurate with the investment in those industries.

Mr.

Westerman 30s.

I haven't checked this data in a little while, but I know Calhoun County, which is the least populated county in the state of Arkansas at one time and had the highest per capita income in the state of Arkansas.

That's a good trivia question, because most people say Benton or Washington County.

But these are not just jobs at Holland Park.

These are careers where people can raise a family and they can grow a community.

These employees have money to build homes.

For some reason, they're choosing to commute in a lot of them other than building in the Camden area.

I think that's more of a local issue.

I've actually got a meeting down there this week where we'll be talking about how to assist in developing the local community.

Thank you sir.

Mr.

Russell 30s.

All right.

I think we're going to see a change in the commuting.

If we don't see a change in the, gas prices in the very near future.

But I think it's a little bit disingenuous to argue on a per capita basis, because to simply say that it is a higher income per capita is easy to attain as a statistic, when you actually have a lower population total overall.

So a per capita basis does not mean that the overall population is doing better economically.

And we need to address that issue above all else.

Mr.

Morrell again, to first to Mr.

Russell.

Thank you Steve.

The Senate Agriculture Committee voted to pass the Agriculture Act of 2026 along party lines.

12 to 11.

All Democrats voted against it.

But the same version of the bill that failed to pass six weeks earlier is going back to the Senate House.

That's going in for me, dawg.

What is needed in the farm bill to make it to the president's desk?

And to me first.

Double check it.

Thank you.

Well, that's not one that I'm familiar with.

I would say that the main thing that any farm bill needs is a re stabilization and reopening of international trade.

The trade routes for our farmers, so many of our farmers in the state relied on trade with the international economy.

They relied on exports.

They relied on these deals that made sure that they had a viable market.

They relied on programs like USAID, where they ensured that they had markets to sell to.

Now, one of the other things that I would like to see included in there is more farm to table actual options in there, because while we are an agricultural powerhouse in the state, we also have some of the worst hunger and food insecurity in the nation.

1 in 5 children not knowing whether or not they're going to be fed that night, while being one of the most highly productive agricultural states in the union, makes absolutely no sense.

So I think that we need to get in there and incentivize farm to table programs to make sure that local economies and local markets are a viable solution for our farmers.

Mr.

Westerman one minute.

First off, I want to say thank you to Senator Bozeman for his work on the Senate and Committee, being the chairman of that and moving the farm bill through the Senate AG Committee, it still has to go through the, through the Senate and then probably come back to the House for, reconciliation between the two.

Now, the House passed a farm bill several months ago.

But something that people miss is in the big, beautiful bill.

We did a lot of the farm bill work in the big, beautiful bill.

Because of the, problems that farmers were facing, particularly on reference prices.

And there's billions of dollars of aid, going out to farmers, across the country right now.

Agriculture is Arkansas's number one industry, and we often times forget that forestry is the single largest component of that.

It's bigger than any single row crop.

And the forestry sector is hurting right now as well.

And that's due to to poor markets.

I'll be introducing a bill soon that addresses specifically the issue with markets for forestry and forest products that are so important to South Arkansas.

Mr.

Russell 30s, the Congressman, addressed billions of dollars in aid going out to farmers.

That's billions of dollars in aid that wouldn't have been necessary had the market not been tanked.

And had they been able to sell at fair market value on the open markets.

Also, he mentioned the passage of the One big Beautiful bill, which, while getting these accomplishments done, also blew up our deficit to $40 trillion.

That is unconscionable.

So I find it questionable to discuss any type of spending or any questioning of spending after passing legislation that's going to increase our national debt to that extent.

Back to Mr.

Westerman.

I want to say the problems in agriculture have been ongoing for quite some time.

It's do more to input cost.

Which diesel fuel is a high input cost, but also fertilizer.

The disruptions in Ukraine and in the Middle East are causing these input costs to increase.

That's reason why we need to build more manufacturing and processing facilities in the United States.

Natural gas is the key ingredient to fertilizer.

We could be making the fertilizer we need here, yet we're dependent on other countries.

The big beautiful bill created tax incentives to bring manufacturing back to America.

And it's happening and it's working every day.

Next question from miss Lee.

And it goes first to Mr.

Westerman.

Congressman Westerman, do you think there needs to be changes to our Medicare and Medicaid programs?

Absolutely.

I mentioned earlier that health care costs make up $2.71 trillion of the federal spending.

That's almost 40% of every dollar that spent is spent on health care.

It's over 18% of our GDP and it's not getting any better.

If you look at health care costs, they've been escalating higher than the rate of inflation, which has been very high lately.

This is mainly started once the passing of the so-called Affordable Care Act that the CBO said was going to insure more people and lower costs.

And it's just the opposite.

On another subject, CBO is wrong more than they're right.

They're only consistent at being wrong.

What we need to do on health care is to rein in the government programs and the government spending.

We did that in the big beautiful bill.

Some people say we cut Medicaid, but I want you to know what happened.

We said that if you're an able bodied, working age adult, you have to work 20 hours a week or volunteer 20 hours a week.

If you're, we're taking out waste, fraud and abuse, and we're saying we're not paying Medicaid bill for illegal aliens.

You have to be an American citizen to get the benefits of American Medicaid dollars.

Mr.

Russell, I'm not.

As stated earlier, again, as was seen in the Yale study, I while we are spending $2.7 trillion, as stated by the congressmen, a shift over to a Medicare for all system would save the nation over $1 trillion, effectively cutting that in half while making sure that everyone is actually covered.

It's frequently brought up that we cover illegal aliens.

What that actually is is a byproduct of the ethics required in hospitals where if you show up for care, there is an ethical and legal obligation to care for that patient, because otherwise you have outstanding liability where you could be held liable.

So trying to say that we're giving free health care to illegals is simply a false flag.

It's a it's a non argument.

We are trying to make sure that every American citizen or person seeking American citizenship legally and properly receives the health care they need and deserve, because health care is a fundamental human right.

Mr.

Westerman and I agree.

And if somebody shows up for health care, give them health care.

Just don't expect the American taxpayer to pay for that health care if they're not an American citizen.

I think CBO's numbers low on how much money we're actually saving for Medicaid, because, these programs that we're putting in place going after waste, fraud and abuse have tremendous potential.

When you cut out waste, fraud and abuse, you're not only helping the federal debt, you're also helping provide more of those resources to people who actually need them and deserve them.

Mr.

Russell 30.

I agree we need to cut down on waste, fraud and abuse.

That's what we saw with the ACA, with it going over to the insurance companies, reaping and record profits time after time while we see premiums increasing.

The waste, fraud and abuse is happening at the corporate level, not at the level that's being indicated.

What is what one person terms waste and abuse, another person in terms profits.

And likewise, we need to ensure that people are getting the coverage they need, not focusing on income levels for the ultra wealthy.

Next question starts with Mr.

Russell and it comes from his list.

Mr.

Russell one name one policy on which you differ from national Democratic leaders and on an issue that you could work with President Trump and Republicans.

How would that collaboration produce a specific benefit for the fourth district?

And again, for you, Congressman, where is something that you would break from President Trump or Republican leadership in the interest of the fourth district?

I don't know that I necessarily differ from the Democratic leaders because I simply haven't seen it brought up.

But one thing that I do think we need to get back to is accuracy and reporting.

I would like to see a re institution of the Fairness Doctrine for the modern age that ensures that any reporting journalism online, whatever it may be, we have so many different avenues of gaining information in this age, and it is so rife for abuse that we need legislation in place that ensures that information is being disseminated accurately, fairly.

And I know and truthfully, above all else, therefore, putting back in the Fairness Doctrine to ensure that both sides are being heard, to ensure that fact checking is actually put in place to ensure that we do not have to worry about anyone claiming fake news or otherwise, because the news has to inherently be reported accurately, fairly, and both sides being given equal opportunities to speak.

Their piece.

Mr.

Westerman, there are 12 standing committees in Congress.

I chair one of those, the House Natural Resources Committee.

We sent 45 bills to the president's desk out of 132 bills.

So about a third of the bills that have been signed into law, that will be signed into law in a few days, came through the committee that I chair.

You cannot pass a bill in the House and in the Senate and get it on the president's desk without knowing how to work across the aisle.

There are many issues we can work across the aisle on, and I've proven that we're able to do that.

Not only these bills that have passed, we got many bills stuck in the Senate right now that are bipartisan mentioned the Fix Our Force Act, the permitting reform bill that the Wall Street Journal said is the most important piece of legislation the country can pass.

And the Great American Outdoors Act that we've been working with the Senate on very good legislation.

There's a lot of things a lot of Americans still agree on.

We need to focus on those things more.

And I know that focusing on that doesn't sell ads on cable news, and it doesn't make it on social media, but it's the important thing I think Americans want us to do.

Mr.. Russell 30s.

I think that it's important to point out that one of the things I have heard the most while on the campaign trail is one simple sentence, and that is, I'm a Republican, but I'm voting for you.

And that's because I am willing to engage with anyone, so long as that debate is in good faith and for the benefit of the people.

I am more than happy to reach across the aisle to work with anyone, and I am not beholden to anyone in any leadership position to stand by anything.

I am there for the people first, foremost and completely.

Mr.

Westerman, again, I'll say, if you look at the big issues we voted on, like the Rural Health Care Transformation Fund, there was zero Democrats voted for that.

If you look at the bills we voted on to increase energy production in America, there were zero Democrats voted for the bills to ensure election integrity.

Zero Democrats voted for that.

Those are issues that, I believe strongly in that I vote for.

But it's a different in worldview and policy.

Republicans want America to grow.

They want the economy to grow, and they want to don't want to be dependent on foreign countries.

And they want the rule of law to answer.

Yeah.

Mr.. Moral question first for, Mr.

Westerman, Switzerland.

Pine Bluff, largest city in southeast Arkansas, has tried for years to make capital improvements to attract new businesses, be an industrial retail.

We know state issue three, if passed, will allow the state to, create economic development programs, and that could help.

But do you have any plans to help cities in need of capital improvements?

As a congressman?

So I'm actually doing something in Pine Bluff to help with the Tom bluff port.

I've got funding in the appropriations bill with transportation, housing and urban Development bill for the Pine Bluff port.

I make trips to Tom bluff all the time and talking about what's happening with the Pine Bluff Arsenal.

A lot of that's happening because Senator Bozeman, Senator Cotton and I met with military officials and sold them on Pine Bluff.

And I think even bigger things are going to happen out of the arsenal.

So I've always said Tom bluff has the perfect ingredients to bake a wonderful cake.

They've got interstate highways, they got class one railroad, they got river transportation to the east.

They've got some of the most productive farmland in the country.

And to the west, in the south, they've got, abundant timberlands, they've got resources, they've got infrastructure, they've got people.

They're just a short distance from little Rock.

And we've got to see Pine Bluff do better.

I think it needs local leadership down there working with state and federal officials.

One minute I, Mr.

Russell, I absolutely agree that Pine Bluff needs to be working with state and local officials.

And at the federal level, I think what we need to do, as Mr.

Westerman said, we we differ on ideologically on how the best way to go about that is, I don't think that we need to be looking for large corporate interests to come in to be the answer or the solution to these problems.

I think what we need is investment in small businesses.

We need more programs that allow people to open the small businesses, to revitalize the downtown district, to self empower so that they have the ability to self-determined and take that power into their own hands, rather than being reliant on a larger corporation for their own financial destiny.

As a small business owner myself, I can attest to this.

It is a leap that many people are afraid to take, especially in this day and age where we have so few social safety nets, where you are dependent upon your job for your health care.

But I think that investing in the people will always yield the best results, because the people want to work and want to earn, because they want to be able to live the American dream of self-determination.

Mr.

Westerman 30s again, Pine Bluff has the ingredients.

They have the people.

I think they've got vision and leadership down there.

There's been a tremendous amount of private investment in Pine Bluff, and the thing I see more than anything else is a strong desire from people to see things change there.

I know with the new, with Saracen down there, that's brought a lot of economic development.

But there needs to be more than that.

There needs to be, manufacturing jobs.

There needs to be more commerce happening down there.

And I think things are looking up for Pine Bluff in Jefferson County in the future.

Mr.

Russell 30 again, there is the infrastructure in place there already, the existing corporations.

I think what we need to invest in is, once again, the people.

You don't get a corporation in a vacuum.

Those grow by somebody taking the leap and making the decision to strike out on their own and create something new for the local populace, the people in that city of Pine Bluff, the local populace, are the best suited to know what is needed and what is lacking in their community.

They simply need to be given the tools and the means to actually bring those into effect.

Unilever.

Mr.

Russell, Mr.

Russell, what is one issue that you break from your party?

Break in from my party is difficult because my campaign manager notes all the time.

I'm not a member of any organized group.

I'm a Democrat.

We are the party of ideas.

We are the party of idealists.

We tend to fraction off on things, so it gets difficult at times.

The one thing that I can state the word I know for a fact I differ is I did hear, you know, in the past where Hakeem Jeffries has said that he does not support a single payer health care system.

Obviously, that's something where I do there are numerous things where we are going to differ in a small way.

We are going to differ in the nuance.

But what I want to point out to the people of Arkansas more than anything is I am on the Democratic ticket.

I have a D next to my name that does not make me a coastal lead.

I am not a New York Democrat.

I am not a California Democrat.

I am an Arkansas Democrat.

I am here for the people.

I am here to ensure that the people's needs are being met and not serving any special interests one might have.

Mr.

Weston from Mr.

Russell didn't really answer the question, so I would ask that same question to you.

Where did you see this?

A gree with the Democrat socialist group?

The radical policies that they're pushing where they want to do away with private property and make it a socialist society where they want to make socialized health care, where they want to make socialized grocery stores.

What about the idea of having girls play or men play in girls sports?

Seems like there would be some pretty easy issues for him to disagree with.

The mainline Democrats in Washington, DC, in the policies that they continually vote for in lockstep.

Mr.

Russell 30 well, I appreciate you delineating it from the democratic socialist versus the Democratic Party in general, because that's an entirely different question when it comes down to private property.

No, I am 100% in support of supporting private property.

I simply think that we need to have fair market policies in place.

I have no intention of coming after anybody's guns.

I do not think that trans people in sports are a major issue, because we're not seeing a flood of it anywhere.

I think that we simply need to allow people the freedoms and liberties to live their lives the way they want, as they want, without harming anyone else.

Mr.

Westerman well, gun control is a central tenet of the Democratic National Party.

And you got to realize, if Democrats get a majority in the House, it's going to be the Socialist, the small group led by AOC and Omar and that crew that's going to be pushing the policies.

Those are the policies that they will block rule for, and they will do everything else to push those policies.

So, having a Democratic controlled House will be totally different than having a Republican controlled House.

When you look at the types of policies that actually come up for debate next question goes first to Mr.

West, someone who comes from his lifetime.

Congressman Westerman, again, I would ask you that sort of the same question.

Give voters a concrete example of when you broke from party and challenged their position and what that accomplished for our district.

I actually did that on the drive up this morning.

The, issue with the, live streaming of the execution of the terrorist, we shouldn't do that.

I had my staff put out a statement saying, this is not in the best interest of America to live stream the execution of a criminal who deserves to be put to death.

Don't get me wrong.

This guy killed 13 American, service members, and he needs to be put to death.

It just doesn't need to be live stream.

It plays into his goal of becoming a martyr.

It does.

I think it undermines our justice system.

And it's something that I hope President Trump will step in and stop this before it's allowed to happen.

Mr.

Russell, I'll have to wing in a little bit because I'm not sure how I would speak.

On how he differs from his party.

However, I will say that I do agree with the decision that we should not live stream this execution.

That is simply not a thing.

To be perfectly honest, it legal and political philosophy is one of the things that I studied in my college curriculum, and I am not a proponent of the death penalty in general, because I feel that the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent.

It is simply giving in to vengeance rather than justice.

And justice is the rule of law that our country is founded upon.

There are hard limits on things, and I understand that visceral need that people feel to want to have some type of emotional response, because we see that play it out so frequently.

We see that played out here and so many of the answers that we're hearing today.

Playing on those fears is not the way to run a country.

We need to actually take a step back from that and look at the type of country that we are.

As it comes down to differing from my own party on an issue, it would be on a case by case basis.

Mr.

Westerman 30s.

And again, I want to emphasize I support the death penalty.

That's the difference between the two of us.

The death penalty is a deterrent.

It's based on the idea that if you murder someone, not manslaughter or other types of, causing people's death.

But if you intentionally murder someone, I think the death penalty is appropriate.

Especially when you've killed 13 people.

When you're a jihad extremist coming into the United States and killing U.S.

military personnel, the death penalty is deserved.

It just shouldn't be live streamed.

Mr.

Russell, you have another 30s.

Again, I understand the position.

I understand that want to seek vengeance and I that want to actually see retribution in place.

However, we need to make a decision of the type of country that we are.

If the death penalty served as a deterrence to terrorists, there would be no terrorist because so many of them end up in suicide acts.

This is obviously not the way to combat it.

Extremism begets further extremism.

It is not the way to combat it.

Gentlemen, we thank you.

That concludes the question and answer portion of our debate.

And, we turn now to closing statements.

As before, the order of closing statements was determined by a coin toss.

And the first closing is by Mr.

Russell.

All right.

I want to thank everyone for watching today.

I would like to thank our host, our moderators.

This has been a wonderful experience.

I hope that this has been enlightening for the viewers.

I hope that everyone engages.

I hope that everyone reaches out, and I hope that this is an ongoing discussion.

The problems that we're facing as a state and nation are not ones that we are going to solve with simply this election.

It is greater than any one decision is going to be.

This is the opportunity to make a start on an ongoing series of changes that we need to make in our society to rebuild and to re fortify our democratic principles and who we are as a country.

This is our chance to make a fresh start in putting positive change for Arkansas, for a better future, a sustainable future for many years to come for our children, grandchildren and those of our neighbors.

And I thank you so much for the opportunity to be here, Mr.

Russell.

Thank you, Mr.

Westerman.

You're close.

Thank you, Mr.

Barnes, and thank you to the panelist as you know, Cindy, thank you for spending your time here.

Thank you to the listeners for tuning in today.

And thank you to Arkansas PBS for making these debates possible.

I'm a lifelong resident of the fourth district.

I've served in Congress for six terms, and I want to continue going back to Washington and doing the work that I've been effective at doing.

So far, as I said before, 45 of the 132 bills that have been sent to President Trump's desk have come to the committee that I chair.

That means I brought the bills up.

We had debate, we had a markup.

We passed the bill, we debated them on the floor, and we sent them to the Senate, and the Senate passed them.

That's not an easy thing to do.

Getting an act of Congress is hard.

It takes hard work.

It takes dedication.

It takes a strong team.

I've got that.

I'm using it for the residents of the fourth district of Arkansas.

I can actually vote for myself in this election and I encourage you to do the same.

Mr.

Westerman.

Thank you.

And with that, our time has expired.

Again, our thanks to our candidates and to our panelists.

And you can watch this and all Arkansas TV debates on demand.

The Arkansas TV YouTube channel and on our website.

The candidates have been, as before, invited to participate in individual press conferences immediately following our broadcast.

And you can continue watching our live stream@youtube.com slash at Arkansas TV or by scanning the QR code on your screen.

Now, once again, our thanks to our candidates and our panelists for participating and to you for watching.

As a reminder, Election Day is Tuesday, November 3rd.

It's your government.

Thanks again.

Major funding for election 2026 Arkansas TV debates is provided by the Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce.