We the People; Senate democratic primary debate

A. Weekend will not be seen tonight. In order that we may bring you the following election 92 special We the People. A Senate Democratic primary debate. Good evening I'm Lynn Springer's. And I'm diverse and welcome to tonight's special program primary election day is now just a week and a half away. So tonight we've dispensed with our usual Friday night format in order to focus on the Democratic race for the United States Senate. There are three principal challengers to Republican Senator Bob Kasten. And we start with Joshi Koda. Mr. Chakotay is a 53 year old Milwaukee businessman who's running extensive advertising campaign for the Senate. Mr. Chakotay is a self-made

millionaire who runs universal medical buildings a Milwaukee company. His political resume looks like this. He's long been active in Democratic politics and is a former state party chairman. This is his first run for statewide office and he touts his business experience is what's needed in Washington. Mr. Chakotay joins us for tonight's debate. Next up is State Senator Russ Feingold. Thirty nine year old state lawmaker from Middleton has also been busy in recent weeks pressing the flesh passing out campaign literature. Here's a quick look now at the final biography. He likes to refer often to his academic background as a former Rhodes scholar and a graduate of the UW and Harvard Law schools. He's been elected to the state senate since 1982. He cites his opposition to bovine growth hormone and his efforts to return more lottery proceeds to taxpayers as two of his principal legislative accomplishments this year as well. And lastly in our alphabetical introduction comes Congressman Jim Moody a 10 year veteran of Congress who serves on the influential Ways and Means Committee. His resume looks like

this. He's a former UW Milwaukee economics professor and a state lawmaker who was first elected to Congress in 1982. Mr. Moody cites his drive for national health insurance as one of the hallmarks of his campaign. And Mr. Moody joins us also tonight. Welcome to all three of you. General we're happy all of you could be here tonight. Thanks for being here. Your campaign has made lots of news in the last week after probably not making lots of news for the last several months and we want to start with that issue principally the nature of the campaign itself for 10 days now. Mr. Moody you were saying not very kind things about Mr. COTA saying that he was someone who hadn't paid taxes Mr. Chakotay. You responded in like say Mr. Moody had filed his taxes and so forth and so on. Now all of a sudden comes yesterday and you both said she never mind. Are we not supposed to pay attention Mr Moody to the very unkind things that you said about Mr. Chicago. Are we supposed to just forget that. No I think it's all in the record and all should be in the record I think. People like Russ Feingold who serve in public office have all of our

statements and all of our activities on the record those are the very qualifications in many ways we're running on so why not keep running this not going to finish. So I think someone who's running as a business person needs to have all of their record on their record and that's the way it's got to be. The voters are going to make an informed decision. So actually. At some point I think everyone's full record has got to be on the record and that's the only way the voters can make that decision. But we gave and take a lot of shots and the Democratic primaries are frequently very rough and tumble this one was more rough than some. I'm glad that we passed that phase and we're on to back onto the positive message which for me has been fighting for national health care fighting for working families fighting for middle class tax cut. And of course making sure that we have education and training in our country so we can be competitive when actually I confess to being a bit confused by this the Franklin I expect most voters are to we have been barred bombarded Mr. Shikata with negative messages about each other. Now all of a sudden again it's like we should just be oh well never mind.

Well I think I need to point out to the voters of Wisconsin. That four months ago when I began this campaign I was behind in the polls by 40 points. Even though I was behind I did not consider the possibility of beginning a naked if campaign. I began a campaign around this state and I visited some 55 counties. Working seven days a week. And I have made literally hundreds of campaign appearances in every corner of the state. Three or four months ago when I entered the campaign. Congressman moody promised that he would not begin a negative campaign or run a negative television commercial. When he fell behind in the polls apparently he began the negative campaign. I waited two or three days when I traveled the state asking him to remove the spots from the airwaves. And I responded only after that two or three day delay. I'm glad the negative campaign is over. I don't want to talk about the negative campaign tonight. I'd rather talk about the issues that are important

to the people of Wisconsin. But you both I believe and I owes you both clearly shows I do want these negative things out about each other. You must have thought they were important. Well I think it's important for me to point out that I run a positive issue based campaign. And I traveled this state without let up for four months. I responded after a delay of two or three days when Congressman moody began the negative campaign. I regret that the negative negative campaign occurred and frankly I personally apologize to the voters of Wisconsin. We're having involved myself in that negative campaign. Mr. Frankel you've been perhaps the beneficiary of this to some extent you've been allowed to sort of sit back and look rather nicely and gentlemanly but your own campaign spots have essentially said these guys are too wealthy they have too much money at sort of wealth and guilt by association. You've done yours a bit tongue in cheek but they've been negative campaign campaign spots of a sort as well. That's not what people are saying in the public I think people appreciate a little sense of humor. I've had a

talk with Mr. Chakotay about this he understands that there's some light humor about just the differences between us and in fact the thing that strikes me about this is I am trying to show that yes and it's true that I am a person of average means and I don't take anything away from Mr. Modi or Mr. Chakotay that they happen to have more I congratulate them. But the point is that the United States Senate doesn't have enough people who are of average means to understand a day to day basis what it is to try to make ends meet. That's all I was trying to say it is not negative to point out that Mr. Chakotay has a nice home or Mr. Moody has a home because in fact there's nothing wrong with that. I haven't questioned their personal integrity once and I want to say this. I have been on the stump for five years much longer than either of these gentlemen on this particular campaign. I have been advised by people on occasion to go negative. To bring out the very things that these two gentlemen have brought out about each other. But I specifically chose not to and I'll tell you why. Because I'm ready to support either one of them if they're the nominee. All right I'll be proud to support this and that's the difference. Let's get that on the record right now you're willing to

support Mr. Modi are you willing to support either Mr. Feingold or Mr. LaBella now that all the facts. Indeed I am. I mean I want to correct one thing that was there. I'll get right back to you but Mr. Kohut are you willing to support either Mr. Moody or Mr Finegold. I think it's important for me to know that I am willing to support either Congressman moody or State Senator Feingold and that I have always been willing to support either of them. I have never had a reservation on either of us. All right Mr. Mayor you want to well I want to correct one thing which a coda said I didn't promise not to bring out facts. What I promise you is not to start. The hits. I receive straight six straight hits from Mr coda. He delved into my taxes release them to the press in a very misleading way and did a series of things which I consider very negative ignored it for a long time. At some point you don't. But as I as he said as I think we both say it's time to move on to the real issues which I think the voters want to hear about which are the issues of health care jobs Working

Families Tax Justice. I'm very high on the middle class tax cut which I was and all of them promise we'll get to all of that a whole hour so we if we do attend let me let me ask you one more question as it relates to character because it's not just an issue that's been raised here at the U.S. Senate race level we've heard it on the presidential level that people do look at the character question. What I'd like to do is David I would like to just step back for a couple of minutes and give you folks the three of you collectively here the floor and laced together if you would what you believe to be character criteria for this job. Personal character criteria and professional character criteria. Talk among yourselves who starts first. Let's start over here. I think one of the most important characteristics for this job of the Senate. Is to have a record of fighting for the people of Wisconsin. The working families in this state people who have had the shaft stuck to them over the last 12 years by Reagan and by Bush and by casting people who need relief from their taxes people

who want an end to the fiscal insanity people who want an opportunity. People want education for their kids. My training is that of an economist. I'm not a lawyer I'm not some of the other professions we have plenty of those in the Senate. I think one of the key key qualifications is someone who has taken the time to educate themselves and train themselves on the key issues facing this country namely the economic issues whether it's trade the deficit taxes inflation you name it health care. I also think it's important for someone in this job. Has shown he's willing to go on the record stick his neck out take a lot of lumps which I have done both on a lot of issues that's got my teeth kicked in literally and figuratively on a lot of issues willing to take a tough chance a tough vote and fight for change to take on the leadership in the body he's in that's in the house and I've taken on the leadership many times and I think that's a characteristic of a fighter Some who's willing to stick his neck out and fight for the people of the state. That to me is the number one characteristic. OK I got it I said I wanted to step out of this but I thought it right here right. Among

ourselves talk among yourselves I don't want I don't want campaign speeches I want to hear what you folks hear when you're out on the campaign trail every day what are people telling you they're looking for. I incoherent or as I travel the state I've been going door to door all over the state not because I think I want to be able to knock on every door in the state of Wisconsin because I'm trying to learn what the concerns that people have and the expectations that people have from government. Here's what I'm hearing. Number one people are concerned about jobs. Time after time people tell me that they're afraid that next year at this time. They're not going to have their jobs. People are also telling me that they are not earning as much today as they were earning five or six years ago. That they have less money to support their family. And people are telling me that they are afraid that for the first time in American history we face the very real prospect that we might find ourselves at the end of the American dream that their children will not have as good an education. As good a job and as good a standard of living as they have.

That's what people are telling me in many different ways but they're all telling me the same thing. Well I understood the question has to do with character and I think you're both saying very appropriate things but really the question is about what people are looking for sort of from the person in terms of character and I think we all have characters here but this is what I'm hearing. And this is why I propose the contract I have in my garage door. I think people think politicians say a lot of things that make a lot of sense but they don't really mean and they don't follow through on it and they just say it to get elected. So what I have tried to do is reestablish and try to show some character I hope by making some promises. Promising that a majority of my campaign contributions would come from Wisconsin citizens I think they want to feel that the person who works for them really does work for them and is close to them. Also promise to stay here as my principal residence the reason is is that I think people feel that somehow there is a character problem when somebody is elected by a group of people then they go off and sort of become a part of another community. They want you to be part of the towns and communities in Wisconsin. And finally I promise

to take no pay raise during my six year term in office not because I think pay raises are always wrong but because I think the people of this country thought the character of the United States Congress had been lost. When it voted itself a giant pay raise at a time when this country had a huge deficit and a savings and loan bailout I think that was a character issue for the people of this country and that's why I'm saying even though I like a pay raise as much as the next guy. That during my term term in office I better go back and get re-elected before I have that benefit. We talked about wanting to move on to some of these other issues let me ask you one quick question as we sort of wrap out this segment. Do you support term limits for elective office. I do support term limits. Twelve years. That's six two year terms for members of the House of Representatives. Two six year terms for members of the Senate. I would like to see a situation in which there were not term limits. But frankly incumbents have so much of an advantage in most elections that the only way we can create a level playing

field and give every man and woman a chance to run for elective office is with term limits. I do support them. I think we need a lot of change over in the Congress and even more in the Senate. I think we have some wonderful people who would have to move on to other forms of service if that took place but we also have a lot of deadwood that doesn't move on that should move on because they're allowed to re-elect themselves forever. So I do support them and I think it will help reinvigorate the Congress we need a lot of change in turnover and this is one of the ways pluses and minuses but the pluses outweigh the minuses. Russ Feingold. Well I strongly disagree with term limits and I know that 80 percent of the people in polls say that they're for term limits. But I believe in saying exactly what I think is best for the American government and I think it would be a disaster to agree with Mr Chakotay. Mr. Moody Mr. Kasten all of whom are for term limits and remember this is a Mr. Kasten who said he was for term limits and now his 12 years are up and he's saying he has to be their friends for seniority. Mr. Moody has been in the Congress for 10 years and he's going to get a six year term if he wins this. That's 16 years

just for one term. That isn't really what people are expecting they're expecting people who are for term limits to really abide by it. So what I believe is this if you have term limits you will render the Congress even weaker than it is now. That the bureaucracy will know that when a senator is elected to a second term that he or she is a lame duck. And I'll tell you as a person who's experienced in government the state level and the bureaucracy knows relieve it they know how to dance circles around you. That's the problem with term limits the real issue is campaign finance reform to stop the type of extensive and outrageous spending that has occurred in this very race that's the problem that term limits is about spend a moment then on the other way I'm limiting my own term I hope. I want you to know as well cliff and pull him up or out. They're going to quit after two years off I mean we know what you think in any one body that's enough 12 to say you'd only serve if you were elected two terms in the United States Senate Lee and you you would agree with that Mr. Chakotay it was fine going to be there for him as I want to serve and as long as the people want me to serve. Let's talk about campaign finance reform briefly and then and then we'll move on to the issues that the

economy should go to you said something rather curious in one of your brochures that I'd like to ask you about. On the subject of campaign financing this is a quote you said that quote Russ Feingold's March 21st report showed a balance of two hundred two thousand dollars Kasten showed a balance of one point eight million. We won't beat Kasten with a Democrat who's outspent 10 to 1. It sounds like you're making the size of someone's checkbook a prerequisite in order to hold office. Well that's not true at all. I'm really addressing the reality that Senator Bob Kasten is going to spend eight or nine or ten million dollars in this race for the Senate. And any one of us Democrats is going to be at a disadvantage as we attempt to wage war against him. But to me campaign finance reform means. That. Political candidates cannot be contaminated or corrupted. By the tens of thousands of dollars in the hundreds and thousands of dollars in the millions of dollars that they have been receiving

from the special interest political action committees because those PACs the special interest PACs give their contributions to the candidates and then expect something back in return. And it's not realistic to expect. That the congressman or senator who finds himself or herself in the House or the Senate. Thanks to special interest PACs will be able to vote against those same very same spoke my question is this in your campaign literature you're essentially saying that Russ Feingold is not qualified to even be the nominee of your party because he doesn't have enough money. You've gone on to say that not only should there not be PACs but individual contributions should go from 2000 down to 500 again which is swell if you're a millionaire like you but you seem to be saying that that is the dollars that's an advantage to whether or not you should be a candidate that's not what I've said. What I have said is in your literature what I've said is that we ought to eliminate special interest political action committees completely. And then that there ought to be $500 limitations for individual contributions. Wealthy individuals like myself and all other country contributors. And then thirdly I've said we ought to have some

logical cap or ceiling on the total amount that can be spent in any one election campaign with a cap or ceiling on the total campaign's expenditures $500 limitations on individual contributions including including wealthy candidates and the elimination of PACs. Now we have a level playing field and anyone can run for public office. Let's let the two of you take up this issue please and campaign finance reform and how you make a level playing. I think I think campaign finance reform begins at home. Yes you do have to try to pass the national legislation and I would favor a national bill requiring that a majority of your campaign contributions come from your own state. But all three of us had an opportunity in this campaign to choose to run our campaign as we wish. And I decided to put some limitations of my own I think are more important than the ones Mr. Chakotay suggested. I don't think there's anything wrong with certain political action committee contributions. I don't think there's anything wrong with occasional out of state. Campaign contributions which you better darn well make sure that a majority of what you receive is from the people whom you would represent and I think that's rather self-serving as Anonymous. You're

saying that because you are from you're a Dane County state legislator I don't have the concept of Mr mood it would be much easier to raise larger contributions outside of this state because people have more money and I own I own state legislator because he didn't I think would be much easier in fact that's And in fact a situation that a lot of people have tried to do and I think that I saw as a result that would be something that I thought would be inappropriate for this campaign and it's not just self-serving because I'm promising it for the future. I'm saying that's a pledge that I'm going to keep and that's what I'm not going to get in there go OK where the PACs and where the out-of state contributions I'm making a pledge for the future. And there is a problem here. The problem the problem is I think there is a point that does need to be made here for the viewers of this program and that is that you've tried hard to raise money in places like Washington D.C. and elsewhere around the country. As a practical matter your out-of-state fundraising effort has not been as successful as my effort has been or congressman Moody's effort has been I haven't even traveled out of state in the last oh I've only went to Washington once the whole last year. That's just not the case the truth is that I focused my campaign here I have 8000 Wisconsin troop

contributors more than either of you have by far by thousands and thousands. I have many more Wisconsin contributors. But the real issue here is the one that was there. And that is is it going to be the case that we tell every young boy and girl in this state. Don't go into politics until you've made a couple million. That's really what's going on here. And I'm not saying what you're doing is wrong just one person doing it. But the notion that you literally are being told You have to have millions before you can serve in this office is wrong. But somebody you've also said that the packs have too much influence you said that there ought to be a level playing field for under financed candidates. And yet it was an article. In the walky journal dated March 25th Finegold take can't take campaigns. For donations to New York. He points out that he has trips planned to Los Angeles Chicago Minneapolis New York and of course by Washington where he has held fundraisers at a thousand dollars a pop. Here's an invitation from Mr. Russ Feingold's and wash and Mr. Feingold is trying to great deal of cities and

a great deal of money by his only by his own quotes and I have a similar one that let me finish defend him now to say to make the high take a high moral tone that somehow it is wrong to collect money from willing donors in other states. Is hip I didn't say that. I said specifically they have a majority of your contributions from out-of-state I don't fault you for getting contributions of personal sort of contributions from us called a majority is not from out of state. That's But more. I just said mine with point clear. I was in the Peace Corps a lot of my former Peace Corps colleagues send me support is that while I was a teacher a lot of my former teachers live around the country send me support is that wrong. Mr. Fine will come notes with his tone the way he's approached this there's something wrong I do not I believe that the fact is that might any might in like in my I didn't finish and my campaign is received approx with the same number of donations from instate In fact according to our calculation we have raised more in state money than anyone in this race. And Jim are taking this far too personally I have only said here tonight I want you to talk like I haven't mentioned last time and plus I'm going to use your name I've just said that I want to make sure that the majority of my campaign

contributions come from Wisconsin now and in the future. Not tonight but you have mentioned many many times that from guard and serious opprobrium attached your permits. Let's get the record straight. You have gone around the country trying to raise money to make a moral issue out of it is simply not appropriate Let's get back to the issues of the race and let's talk about working families we're going to just about health care. We'd like to switch gears here and talk about another issue that is also one that is consuming every. Every race around the country right now and that is the burgeoning federal deficit. You all have. Rights that you've talked about a plan that you've talked about and how you would wrestle with that deficit. Let me begin with you first Joe Chicago death. Let's talk about some of the major points that you see necessary in order to help reduce that deficit. Let's talk about a couple specific areas defense cuts. Where would you cut them. How much. Well I think the most important point about the deficit is to recognize that right now the deficit is five hundred billion dollars one thousand ninety two. And

that this year every time the federal government spends $3 it takes in only $2. So we must cut the federal deficit big time and we must stop nibbling around the edges as Congress has done in recent years. Now I think there are five or six things we need to do. First of all we need to recognize from the standpoint of defense your question. That with the Berlin Wall down. With the Soviet Union as a nation this integrated and with the cold war over the time has come to make big time cuts in defense. The Democratic leadership in the Congress has suggested 20 billion dollars five or six percent. And President Bush has suggested 10 billion dollars. Three percent. And I've suggested a much larger number 30 percent or even a greater number than that something like 75 or 100 billion dollars. And some members actually by the way you say 250 billion. But in those cases we're talking about a five year period with 50 billion dollars a year being the minimum.

I think there is something else we need to do. We need to recognize that this country can no longer provide as much foreign aid as we've provided in the past. It would be great if we could help all the nations and all the peoples of the world as we have in the past but we don't have the money so we must decrease our foreign aid expenditures in addition to that. I would take a sharp pencil to the operation of federal government departments. Most businesses and most federal government departments can stand to cut a 5 or 7 or 10 percent and leave the programs essentially intact. And I would have a polluter tax so that businesses that fall our air and our water pay the price. Those are things that just need to be done. And if we don't make those moves our federal deficit our accumulating national debt will simply spiral this country into the worst depression this country has ever known. Two other quick areas that I want to move on to the others here a tax cut for the rich. Is that something that you also see as part of the means of reducing that deficit. I've thought all I've talked all over the state about a tax cut for the rich. And what I've seen a tax

increase I mean I taxed. Think about it what Rich excuse me and what I've said is that we ought to have a higher tax rate. For those Americans who earn more and are meaning. I'm talking about the top 4 percent the top 5 percent of Americans their tax rate ought to be higher because they cannot afford to bear a greater portion of the burden of running our country. I've also proposed a surtax on the incomes of the super rich whenever the super rich report a super income. There ought to be a surtax in that year on that income What about Social Security in particular the cost of living increase for the wealthiest of Americans who do receive Social Security. Would you touch that. We've made a contract. With seniors in this country and with all the people in this country when it comes to Social Security. And we've promised that if payments are made over the course of a lifetime they'll be certain benefits at the time of retirement. And I think it's very important that the American government not break its contract with the American people.

Russ Feingold Let's talk about let's talk about where the rich should be taxed within the framework of that deficit. And let's talk about the defense part of that let's talk about the entitlement programs. Let's first talk about one plus one equals two. Mr. Chakotay and Mr. Modi have said in their ads that they favor a middle class tax and I do not. I do not. And they're going to support a balanced budget amendment. And we're going to solve the deficit. Well that doesn't add up. The only way we're to get our budget going here and solve the deficit is being able to say no. Unlike Mr. Modi who does favor some extension of the capital gains break I'm willing to say no to that. I am also willing when that basically benefits typically higher income people. I also am willing to say no to the middle class tax cut even though I may be the person most beneficiary of of that sort of thing tax cut. And the reason is is that we can't really solve the federal deficit. If we can't learn to say no and you have to say no to the middle class tax cut. Regretably. Noted for the capital gains breaks and follows something along the lines of my very specific eighty two point plan which I've read which which which you

know people it's funny to say a two point plan I threaten people going through all the points but they almost never do. But the point is we took a year to look carefully and specifically tell where the defense cuts would come not just taking a sharp pencil to them but we've listed exactly dollar for dollar. Where I would make the cuts and I think that's the kind of thing people want to see such as through Social Security. I just want I believe as just Mr. Chakotay. But that is a contract of the American people and it is just plain wrong to attack Social Security. If there are wealthy people that have too much money Let's tax them. Like all wealthy people don't use age discrimination as a way to go after the elderly. So you do you turn on this. You heard Mr. Feingold say that he opposes a middle tax middle class tax cut and he also opposes the balanced budget amendment which you tried to get through Congress. Make the other case for why middle tax the class tax cuts and why do we need a constitutional amendment on a balanced budget. When I arrived in Congress I didn't think we needed a middle of the balanced budget amendment. But after watching the futility of the process I have come to

believe that we need to change the ground rules of budgeting in the federal government to require Congress first the president and then Congress to actually submit a balanced budget. If Congress wants to select debt. And not meet a balanced budget it should do so explicitly on the record and should take a supermajority of 60 percent to do so. The even of that in effect make sure your party weaker makes it a minority party by that 60 percent requirement. Now my party it's not a partisan issue. I'm not sure how that will break along party lines. The Stenholm Carper movie version of the balanced budget amendment which failed by only not only by nine votes to pass and getting two thirds this year and by the way every Democrat in Wisconsin Virt support one or the other versions. And I think I disagree strongly with Mr. Feingold that we don't need to change the budgeting rules we do that version would have said it takes a simple majority for a tax increase takes a simple majority for a. Spending cut but it takes 60 percent if you want to select more debt as a way out of the problem. Doesn't mean you can't do it but it makes it tougher and I think that's appropriate that some version of the concert from them and that I do support After

reluctantly saying why not the middle class tax cuts and I see another difference between Mr. Feingold and I is that I do support a military tax cut he says it doesn't add up. Well the numbers do add up. My own proposal for balancing the budget which I assume you've seen presented to you and has a lot of attachments with military cuts and others would cut 100 billion dollars from the defense budget by the year 5 you have to phase it in. One hundred twenty one billion dollars from domestic and foreign. And those are spelled out. Thirty nine billion dollars in tax increases for the wealthy. And thirty four billion dollars would accrue to you in savings on. Interest payments that would yield a cut of thirty three hundred four billion dollars. And since the deficit expected to be about by your 5 about 260 billion by the CBO and other analysis that would leave a surplus so that you could grant some middle relief for the middle income tax cut and let me make a very important point. We passed a middle income tax cut in the Congress was written in the Ways and Means Committee and I was very much part of that. That middle class tax cut was financed by asking those who make over

$200000 a year to pay more. And also there was a millionaire surtax I helped write that and I strongly support it. I disagree with Russ we disagree on a very honest basis on this. But my proposal is a middle class tax cut financed totally by making the wealthy pay their fair share in fact. Our bill my bill had a 14 billion dollar surplus so it is not irresponsible to have a middle class tax cut as long as it is financed. But wouldn't it be better. Mr. Moody Mr. should go to to to to use that money to reduce the deficit rather than just giving people a couple hundred bucks a day when there's a point that I think it needs to be made here. When we talk about the deficit when we talk about the national debt. That has gone from three quarters of a trillion dollars in 1980. To four trillion dollars today. Congress and by Congress I mean professional politicians are playing games. A five year plan is developed. In that five year plan it is recognized that there will be a deficit in years one and two but that then will have a surplus in years three four and five and everything will work out even over the five year

period. But the difficulty is that every two years we write a new five year program and nobody acknowledges their responsibility to cut the deficit as well. The Constitution Well the constitutional amendment that was suggested in the Senate. Is dead wrong and it's dead wrong in this respect. When we modify the constitution of the United States that's very serious business. We ask 35 or 40 states to concur. And if we have a constitutional amendment that permits any 60 senators any time they want to be chicken again and not face the responsibility of really balancing the budget to change their mind and nullify the constitutional amendment that just doesn't make any sense and that's politics as usual in government as usual. And that's the professional politicians leaving themselves an escape hatch not just in terms of playing games. Let's talk about playing games just balance a budget amendment plays games. These fellows know how long it's going to take to pass a constitutional amendment it will be long after September 8. It will be long after November 3rd it will be years down the road if either of them are in the U.S. Senate

they'll be well into their term and all their time. People will be able to say well we're waiting for that constitutional amendment to pass when the truth is people make Mr. Moody have had a chance for many years to propose a plan. Not just this summer but a plan you have to propose a plan that I've never seen you told me your plan just came out a couple months ago. Given the Ways and Means Committee committee they can raise revenue and solve that situation instead of letting it get so bad. The Congress did. Pass the bills. That led to the deficit so you place more blame on Bush and Reagan. But the Congress was a participant and we have to look at the reality that the balanced budget amendment will take years. And it isn't going to solve the problem today. That's the problem with that. I think it's a very old regard and I've made it clear that until we can have. A balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution. I'm going to vote against any budget that isn't balanced and curious. I think Mr. Cutter because frankly that doesn't quite add up. I mean you said you will never vote for a budget that's not balanced and yet your own plan to

cut the deficit would take five years which puts you then seems to me in the position of voting against your own proposals for four years. No my plan I've never suggested that my plan would take five years. Some of their lives some of that adds up after five years some of them going to some of the cuts that I have suggested are cuts that are. Computed on the basis of a five year period and one fifth taken each of those five again to be done in one year. No one says you know we're done isn't here. I'm not convinced that it can't be done and then why not put out a plan that says that. Well what I'm saying. Well among other things because I am not a U.S. senator. I don't have access to all of the departments of the federal government and all of the staff that would help me understand where the dollars that might be cut are and I've never pretended that I've always said that my plan would cut the current deficit by something like something like 50 to 60 percent and that there's a good distance to go beyond that then you can vote for your own plan which was my point. I'm not suggesting I'm not suggesting that my plan is complete. What I'm suggesting is

that my suggestions for cutting the deficit. By suggesting suggestions for balancing the budget and causing this government to operate on a pay as you go basis would be matched up with the suggestions of many other members of the Senate and that together we would come as quickly as. It's from each of the plays that we want to move I think I think I think I had a little time coming on this question and if I might. First of all it is not a dodge to say that we have to get started now and cutting the deficit to arrive at a 5 year point it would wreck the economy Joe. To to balance the budget next year or any one year when you are starting with a 300 or 250 billion dollar deficit it would solve the whole economy into chaos and would probably put us in a tailspin from which it would take years to recover to say you're not going to vote for any budget was out of balance. So take yourself right out of the legislative process for the at least five years and maybe more. I agree with Russ that it's irresponsible to just put out a balanced budget amendment bills and then not take the tough steps to get there. You have to have a forced march between

now and then to get there. But to say but to but to say that it's we don't therefore need a balanced budget amendment. That's the position I used to have but I have seen it not work what do we have now is a political will it isn't working we need to change the ground rules of budgeting to make it to make to make us make those tough decisions. What I want to go back to saying is we need to start saying no we need to say no to campaigns brakes no to middle class tax cuts or else all of this is just talk. You have to start with that. And then the getting tough can start getting tough means not spending what you finance the middle class taxes with a tax increase on the wealthy that is not that money is used for deficit reduction tool. Then they should that also. OK let's move on to another issue that has also received a lot of attention and that's the issue of health care. NBC Tom Brokaw has a wonderful line where he often says understanding the vast number of health care proposals that are floating out there is about as interesting as reading your life insurance policy that most people probably have never done. Help

us understand if you will. We have a number of these plans as many as 50 or more floating through Washington right now. Walk us through as concisely as you can the health care national health care plan that you see best fitting your will do you want to go. Let's start with Joe this time. OK. I believe that every American. Ought to enjoy as a right of citizenship. The opportunity to see a doctor whenever they're sick. That's it's just that simple. I propose universal health care. All Americans are covered. The federal government would mandate the federal government would determine the program of coverage. I would cause business to become responsible for paying for the cost of the health care and that would be the second part of the question and how do we pay for the program that you espouse. Each company would be responsible for paying for the cost of health care coverage for that company's employees and then eventually the play or pay. It's a variation that

it's a Clinton has it's a variation of it but the federal government would in effect become the safety net or the federal government would provide health care for those Americans who are not employed. I don't believe however that a Congress that can't run a tiny post office is likely to be able to run. Our national health care program. And so I would propose that private. Providers insurance companies HMO as medical centers and others would in fact provide the coverage paid for by business according to a program that would be evenly administered and uniformly mandated nationally by the federal government. Here's a point of difference you two on the other hand favor single payer to make the other case. Yeah well I think we've got to get away from the insurance companies. I think that's the heart of the problem with their fifteen hundred insurance companies butting up against each other competing with all these different forms and we know from the Canadian experience although I don't share all of the Canadian experience as be valid for the United

States. But that was a huge savings for them. Having a single payer system I don't think Mr Chicago's plan will lead to those kinds of efficiencies. Also Germany which is a multi payer system pays less of their GNP toward health insurance and Canada does well. United States has an outrageously high figure in Canada showed that by cutting down on the insurance companies that accounted for some 20 percent of their savings perhaps or other factors in the German situation. But my situ my belief on this is if you have a universal health care system with a single payer but I agree with Mr Chakotay that perhaps it doesn't have to be administered with a giant bureaucracy in Washington as Congressman David Obey said this can be administered more at the state and local level as long as there is a national requirement and a guarantee that it would only be done through single payers rather than through all the insurers now the other point I want to make about my thoughts on this. Is that if we don't have strong government regulation of health costs. If we don't have for example in Madison Wisconsin where there are several open heart centers a requirement that we only have one or two which is wasteful we won't get the benefits and I don't think Mr. Shikwati his plan provides for that and the last thing I'd say is that if this plan does not include extensive coverage for long term care for the

elderly and the disabled. We will not only betray the people that need to help but we will miss the greatest opportunity for saving which is to help people stay in their own homes in the community settings rather than paying $30000 a year. These are all part of what I see as a universal health plan that would cover all Americans for me. For two years I've been working on a bill we introduced quite a long time ago for single payer here in this issue Joe and Joe and I disagree Russ and I agree. I think you got to be single payer in Germany by the way. There is a single payer for each person throughout his life you join a. Plan when you're first into the working force and you have that single payer forever. Canada and some other countries have a single payer geographically with Saskatchewan British Columbia Ontario we have a single payer per province. You gotta have a single payer Otherwise you have all this competition that is wasteful because health care is not like most other goods and there are a lot of reasons why it is wasteful that way we have. Hundreds of health care companies anyone to. Insurance companies all with

different forms different categories different definitions. We spend in America 24 cents on every health care dollar on overhead administration forms paperwork waste. The average family physician in Wisconsin spends 5 hours a week filling out forms. 24 cents on the dollar is not availed for health care goes for overhead. The problem with payer plays it basically locks in all that kind of wasteful situation it doesn't do anything to cut the waste the overhead and the profiteering by providers in just a second. In the end that's the crucial part when you have a single payer not only do you go to a single form a single electronic billing system in cutting out. You can cut out get down to 2 or 3 cents per dollar like Canada does but also you have someone there on the side of the consumer who is negotiating toughies with builders like yourself with doctors with physicians with with the with. Hospital and only when there's that in place we get cost serious cost containment.

Mr. Moody it's me this you've been in Congress 10 years. You've as you said you introduced this package some time ago. You're fond of saying that this is the principle plan before Congress. My has not happened. Why hasn't there even been a vote on it. Why can't the Congress the politicians who are there now make this happen when fighting for a vote. We have several things against us. We have insured the majority party well but we're not this is a majority plan. Unfortunately I wish it were. Unfortunately the Democratic leadership is still supporting Mitchell and Gephardt and others. The player play I think they're dead wrong I don't that's for reasons I've outlined I think that's the wrong way. We're still a minority we're trying to convince others. We have 70 sponsors but that's not nearly enough to get it passed. The reason we the reason we don't get this passed in my judgment is we it's known in the Congress that we still have a president would veto it if we did and we have a Senate who wouldn't take it up if we passed in the house. We've got to change some members in the house. We've got to change a lot of members in the Senate and we have to change the president. This plan I think is the best plan. But whatever we do we all three agree on one thing. Universal coverage that's got to

go to the White House. And if we change presidents we will at least get that passed Mistretta you're itching to respond. Well I think there are a number of points that need to be made on national or universal health care insurance. First of all. The federal government is not an efficient operator manager in the opinion of most people myself certainly included. When you talk about a nationwide or national program the notion that the federal government will efficiently and effectively economically administer a health care program is a notion that I don't subscribe to. Secondly. I'm terribly concerned that if the federal government takes charge of our health care system that means Congress by the way that does mean the professional politicians. Then we're going to see the large special interests and their political political action committees make huge contributions in the election campaigns of these members of Congress and the influence of Congress on the day to day management of the program that we're talking about will not be a pretty picture. If you want to see waste if you want to see inefficiency if you want to see duplication of services and frankly graft and corruption

watch a program in which the congressmen and senators who need campaign contributions from the special interest PACs of the health care industry. Are running our nationwide program of universalism within us under this article under this argument we would have no federal housing program or socially we have no federal programs relating to other aspects of the human services system. We would say that simply because the federal government takes leadership on an issue that they'll be corruption Well I assure you there's corruptions at all levels of government and we have to have a faith in our federal system which is combining the federal law with good state local administration but I'm not going to buy into this notion that we really will have a universal system if the federal government doesn't mandate it and you know I mean and there are plenty of waste and corruption in the private sector of health care. That's where most of it is Joe. And frankly what you're seeing wins you don't think there should be Medicare because Medicare is exactly that it's federally run it's not running the doctors doctors are private and they would be in my plan and what the plan Russ agrees to. But they would be the insurance

side of it would be overseen by a federal system that would be state by state by state. But your argument say we should not we should abolish Medicare because there's corruption no Medicare spends 3 cents on the overhead. Private insurance spends 34 cents on the dollar for overhead in the nation it averages out to 24 Medicare is far more efficient than all the profiteering waste and overhead that goes into the private sector on health care right now. And as we slide into the last part of our program here we want to move our way to some foreign policy questions which are no doubt going to face so that a new Congress also this fall. Let me begin with a question that certainly relates to foreign countries it's really economic related but quickly if we can just get a sense from each of you on how you feel about the the trade agreement and if you do not agree with it what form or shape do you think a trade agreement should take. And Russ Feingold let's begin with you. I am troubled by the agreement that the president has initialed the North American Trade Agreement just as I am troubled by the GATT talks that are going on in Europe. Both of these agreements for some reason are set up in a way that hurts the northern states that we're in. More than any other state

some say that the Mexican-American agreement is harmful to the Rust Belt states because of the potential now for more industries to go down to Mexico without any penalty and hurt American jobs. With regard to the GATT talks which is also imminent there is a tremendous threat to American Americans particularly Wisconsin dairy farmers who could be hurt by the glut of milk coming in from other countries. So I would oppose the agreement of the North American Dream in its current form. I'm expecting President Clinton to be in office and I'm hoping that President Clinton will get in there and take the opportunity to reform that agreement to make sure that American companies can't just run down and take advantage of that Mickey adorer system is one where essentially there's agreement between all of you I don't mean to press on here but essentially you all have problems with the current the current agreement. I have a verse you can go to quoting your thoughts also. Well I think any time that we permit American business to move a half a block across the border from America. And pay people less than a dollar an hour without health care insurance or any other benefits and not insist upon pollution abatement and

pollution control measures and then let those products flood back into the United States at a fraction of the cost those products are able to be manufactured in this country because we pay a living wage. Then we are simply exporting jobs and importing unemployment. And to me that's nuts. I have been criticized by Mr Kota for going to Mexico in his ads. I would give the key a door a strip that 12 mile strip below Texas and USA. And there I saw the most polluted body of water in North America the Rio Grande River because on the US side the American factories are adhering to EPA standards but on the Mexican side they're pouring pouring untreated industrial waste into the river. I saw child labor laws not being observed and I saw ocean health and safety standards not being applied and managers admitting that you could bribe the officials and I saw 60 and 70 percent our wages from Exxon workers who have no unions and are not allowed unionized there is not a single union between Ville Texas and San Diego California. The whole affair that the leaders of the workers are simply brought in and told what the next year's wages will be 1 percent 2 percent and that's it no bargain. The

Mexican government uses the military and the police to break up strikes if any are threatened. So we are putting our workers at lullabye furniture which is now off to Mexico those jobs. Goodridge tires tire and Auclair Chrysler in Milwaukee. Briggs and Stratton these jobs have gone to Mexico because the costs are locked in to be lower not only wages but also all these other items permanently. So we cannot absolutely cannot accept this New Mexico free trade agreement I'm not troubled by. I'm actually opposed to it until and unless Mexico makes enormous internal changes to wipe out these cost preferences that they have built in. Now I'm not opposing the Canadian US treaty because Canadians have carpel Ocean last couple waves last summer. But let's try to squeeze in one more foreign policy question and let's talk about something that has dominated the news in recent months and that's the situation the former Yugoslav republics. Mr. Moody you have take an unpopular stand on this you have been supportive of Serbia in many instances you've had strong support from the Serbian community. You were one of only two people on the floor of the House

who would not was not willing to support President Bush in his isolation of Serbia. You have said and I think this is an exact quote. It's not up to domy to decide what's right and what's wrong in this conflict. There's something very wrong about what's happened terribly and I'm curious about why you have been unwilling to criticize Serbia for some of the actions which the rest of the international community has strongly criticized Iverson. I have strongly criticized Serbia on many occasions in the public record and I'll be happy to send it to you and speeches on the floor and reports to my colleagues. I've been to Yugoslavia. My curse is that I know too much. I spent two years in a country. Speak the language and have friends and have travelled in Croatia Serbia Bosnia and other republics. It's a terrible human tragedy of major proportions in which there is plenty of guilt on all sides and plenty of victims. More than anything. Are you willing at this point to say that there's been more wrongdoing on the point on the side of the Serbian absolutely the Serbs are better armed they're more numerous they've lived in

Boston for over a thousand years and they're better armed and therefore they're doing more of it. But all three sides have committed atrocities and to pretend to say all of it's on one side all that is a disservice to the truth. And I know it's unpopular to not take the popular side. But having been there and knowing the experience that those people have gone through the tragedy they're feeling and the pain and suffering of the Croatian Americans of Serbian Americans in the Boston Americans knowing the pain. I can understand why people are emotional. But but but. I must tell you all three sides have committed atrocities in the leadership on all three sides has been horrendous. I think it's a how far how far would you be willing to what kind of support would you be willing to provide from the United States perspective in this situation. Well the first thing I'm going to say I must say is that there is a clear difference in terms of the atrocities as far as the information that's been received throughout the world and of the Serbian side has clearly been more involved in that in the context not just a question of superior arms. And I think it's just a little too easy to say that everybody is doing something wrong here something very bad. I think everybody may have done something wrong but I think a little more wrongdoing has

occurred on one side or another and that is a time when this country and others have to come together through the United Nations to really question and investigate what's going on. I do favor the United Nations coming in. With the ability to investigate whether these camps are truly the kind of camps that people fear. I believe that European troops should be the main troop force to do that if troops are necessary. We made the commitment in Iraq I don't know why the United States always has to provide the troops but I think the United Nations is the mechanism by which we can try to find out exactly what's going on. And I think we have to be honest here the congressman we had an opportunity to call earlier for the recognition of Croatia and Bosnia did not and that that would have made a difference that late recognition of the late that late recognition has been in order my information was a serious problem for Croatia because a great deal of devastation in Bosnia Croatia and the United States and follow the lead of the European countries earlier. I think we would've been in better shape and Joe should quote it. There is a lot of question about whether the United States involvement actually helps or exacerbates what is in fact a very very difficult situation there. Your thoughts.

I think there's a larger issue here. I think the limits of American power and influence need to be carefully questioned. We have now the breakup of the Soviet Union 15 or 20 independent republics where once we had one nation. We have independence for a whole series of Eastern European countries that formerly were communist or communist for 50 years since World War Two. I think the United States should concentrate on the eradication of AIDS feeding people who are hungry. Stopping the spread of nuclear weapons particularly to third world countries. I'm not convinced the United States can find itself involved in each and every civil war that breaks out somewhere in the country at my hearing you correctly I think each situation needs to be looked at carefully. And I would be frank to tell you that because I'm not a member of Congress because I'm not a member of the Senate as we have this conversation and I don't have all the information that members of Congress are privileged to have I'm not as informed I can't be as informed on any specific

situation are going to question I think was what point is military intervention justified. It's justified if there are camps going on there were slaughter is occurring or atrocity do you support that now. I would support it through the United Nations as I said but the use of European troops is from an absolutely. I've always said that we should get the U.N. in there with whatever components are required including our own share. Very bad have the Germans have major players because they try to subdue the Balkans on several occasions and that would set off more problems but yes we should have UN intervention to stop the fighting we've got to stop the fighting that's number one and the US should try to broker the peace between the warring sides and we should. I do support the policy of using arms to bring in food support in the meantime. All right. I wish we had another half hour unfortunately this hour is spent by and so we need to bring this up close we appreciate all of you being willing to be here we want to give you though each of us a last chance to talk to the voters directly across our state they'll be going to the polls in just 10 10 days or so so we'll go in reverse alphabetical order now each have about 45 seconds to make a closing

statement. We'll begin then with Mr. Moody. First let me thank you for having us here and having this frank exchange I think it's been good. There are differences and there are similarities between the three of us. Joe and I differ on the kind of health care insurance system this nation needs. Russ and I differ on the balanced budget amendment and on middle class tax cuts financed by the wealthy paying their fair share. I think there are others but those are the main ones that I think and I think they're critical for the voters this time to choose between us because all three of those issues health care. Tax Justice making more progressive the tax code. Are all relevant and of course fiscal restraint which is we've got to have this is killing our country. I grew up in a family where I was taught that you had to put more into society than you took out. And my parents were both social workers and they taught me that you had to devote yourself to some kind of service we are running out of time so please just a concluding thing. I've tried to do that in the Peace Corps in care in the state legislature as a teacher. I've tried to make society better place

in the Congress. I'm proud of my record. I have fought for more economic justice equal rights civil rights a woman's right to choose a better country education. I have a progressive record that has earned me the respect of a lot of people and I'm very proud of that. And in the U.S. Senate I would bring that kind of fight to bear. And that sometimes moribund body middle class tax cuts aren't health care for all Americans those are the two things we've got to have this committee think it's final. Well this was a good debate. It was on the merits. But there's two quick points I want to make. First there should have been a lot more debate. I have accepted since last October 25 debate invitations that these gentlemen have avoided in most every instance. And had we had those debates there could have been these kind of conversations all over the state of Wisconsin and you could have had an opportunity to review our records and our abilities in your own communities. But this was rejected I was beginning to feel a little lonely frankly I'm good glad to see you guys here tonight. The second point is this. This campaign has not really been about the issues. This campaign has been about money.

Mr. Chakotay has spent some three million Mr. Modi has spent over 2 million. And the fact is that this has become awash in money. Now if money is going to decide this election Russ Feingold is going to come in last. But if people are going to decide this election we're going to win because we have the only campaign with a grassroots organization and that I think is something people ought to consider as the process is taken away from them. Mr. Feingold thank you. Well I'm the son of a schoolteacher. Who grew up in Watertown. I went to work when I was 13 as a stock boy. Worked my way through the University of Wisconsin. I've been more successful and done better than I ever thought I would. And I'm now spending money that. I worked all my lifetime to earn. To seek election to the Senate. I think the voters of Wisconsin. Would rather see me spend money that I worked all my life to earn to find myself in the Senate. Than accept money from the special interests who would come knocking on my door looking for a vote.

So I'm going to be independent. I'm going to vote my conscience. I am going to. Vote the wishes of the people of Wisconsin. If the state sends me to Washington as its next senator I go to thank you. Gentlemen thank you Athena. Q Getting up this week we weren't sure we were going to have a mud wrestling event here or a debate we're glad to see that it in fact has been a debate. We hope it also will not be the last Senate debate. We also plan to have another we have the people debate on October 16th between whoever wins on the Democratic side and Sen. Bob Kasten. Now the debate will consist of a town meeting format with the candidates taking questions from the audience. That one again scheduled for October 16. One other programming note our regular weekend program returns next Friday night. But at a new time 7:00 o'clock and most of the stations 9:00 p.m. in Washington. Thanks. Have a good night.