KANU News Retention

[DEBORAH HOLMES]: There will be no limits on time as far as answers from the candidates. I would like the candidates to answer the questions as succinctly as possible. Rebuttal time will be offered to the candidates, but again, I would ask you to be brief and to the point. Reporters will be allowed to ask followup questions of the candidates, and there will be no opening statements, but each candidate will be given two minutes for closing statements. Our first question is from Carol Whittaker. [CAROL WHITTAKER]: I wanted to ask really either candidate, I don't know if I need to direct this to one or the other, but I'll start with you. John, do you think that, in terms of the GATT treaty, what are your thoughts about that? Is it a boondoggle or a bonanza? And should Congress ratify it this coming December? [JOHN CARLIN]: I think the real question is we dont know -- we don't know about GATT enough to make a decision. I'm strongly opposed to the Congress acting this fall. And although they've put it off now until December, I don't think they'll be studying too much on GATT between now and December. My concern is that the people have legitimate questions, legitimate

concerns. Those concerns should be addressed openly and honestly with the people, and it cannot be done between now and the first week of December. It may be a very good treaty, but people in the 2nd District as I campaign are incredibly frustrated with Congress -- frustrated to the point where they feel like they've been totally left out. This will just add fuel to that fire, even less confidence in government. Let's be willing to openly and honestly discuss this treaty with the people. [DEBORAH HOLMES]: Mr. Brownback? [SAM BROWNBACK]: Yes. Carol, it's a good question. I'd like to start as well, if I could, with thanking you folks for hosting this and thanking the listeners for being a part of the audience. I actually think it's potentially both great and a boondoggle. If you look at the rule that was passed by Congress to consider the GATT that just passed, which I would have voted against, it had a bunch of pork stuffed in it -- spectrum giveaways for the Washington Post, some items like that -- that I thought were wrong, should've been taken away. That's just kind of Washington as usual. And

that shouldn't have been in there, and that's why I would have voted against the rule for consideration. It passed. The GATT treaty will be considered sometime the end of November. I've worked in the U.S. Trade Representative's Office. I was a White House Fellow there when the GATT treaty fell apart in 1990 in Brussels, and this is a followup treaty to that. It potentially could be a very good thing to the economy of the United States and also to Kansas. If you look at it, the projections are that it'll grow the world economy by nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars. You're looking at a growth in U.S. agricultural exports of between $7 billion to $8 billion under the treaty and its potential for cutting, globally, taxes and tariffs around the world. And it's a continuation of a process that started in 1947 to try to back governments out of the business of regulating world trade and world economy. That's been very successful in the manufactured goods area, where tariffs were about 40% when they started in 1947, and they're on the average worldwide now about

4%. So I see it has good potential. I'm concerned about the World Trade Organization. A lot of people are very concerned about that -- what impact it has, what potential it has into the future -- so I think it needs to be studied and the hearings held, looked at. I'm reading the GATT treaty now before we decide and make a vote on that particular issue. [CAROL WHITTAKER]: I just want to ask one followup question. If either of you were in office currently, would you have a "yes" or a "no" vote, or are you undecided at this point on the GATT treaty? [JOHN CARLIN]: I would vote "no" on the treaty this fall, because, as I said earlier, people haven't had their questions answered, and there's not going to be enough time. I think it would be ridiculous, on one of the most major decisions this country has ever made in terms of trade, that we charge ahead and not have full disclosure, full discussion on whether it's really best for us. It might be, but we can make that decision next spring in a far more responsible way. [SAM BROWNBACK]: I would vote "no" on the rule to consider the GATT that came up -- that did pass before the Congress -- because of the pork in it. And I want to read the GATT treaty and listen to the hearings before I make a decision on how I would vote actually on the treaty.

[DEBORAH HOLMES]: Steve Kraske. [STEVE KRASKE]: My question is about trust. Both of you are running TV spots now that suggest voters should not trust your opponent. Why do you feel that way? [SAM BROWNBACK]: Steve, if I could take that one first. We've put up a TV ad that discusses John Carlin's record, and in that record there are a number of items that are there -- as there are things in my record as well as Secretary of Agriculture. He ran, the first time around, saying that he would fix utility rates and reduce them. They went up more under his administration than they did under the governor that he succeeded, Governor Bennett. He stated that he would pass, or he would sign, a death penalty bill and vetoed it four times and is now back stating that he would vote for a crime bill that passed in Congress this last year that had an expansion of the death penalty in it. There are other issues in it about raising of taxes that are in it. There are other issues regarding the raising of the severance tax and the spending that went associated with that. When he campaigned for governor, he said he'd hold spending down -- spending went up substantially. Those are

factual issues. We've put those out there, and we've put them in front of the people of the state of Kansas. And I think they're appropriate to discuss of those factual issues. He's challenging my work on control of atrazine above Lake Perry in Kansas and is challenging whether I can be trusted or be somewhere else. It's an incomplete story. I think it's perfectly appropriate for him to discuss my record, but he also should point out that atrazine levels went down due to our voluntary program that we were working with the people in Kansas. And it's also a model of how government should work with people. I've been traveling this district for months now saying to the people, "We need to get the government off your back and out of your pockets." And what we did in that atrazine work is instead of saying, "We're going to mandate and tell you you've got to do this," we went out to the farmers of the region and said, "Work with us. We want to work with you to get these levels down." And it worked. And I think that's how government ought to work. So, while he may challenge my record, I think he should go further and say completely that, "Look, it did work." [DEBORAH HOLMES]: Mr. Carlin?

[JOHN CARLIN]: Deborah, I think we've got a little problem here in terms of any time you have an attorney, you really need time limits, because a "brief" means something different to an attorney than it does to those of us who are not. The issue of trust I find very interesting in terms of how my opponent proceeds on it. He runs out a commercial that in it people say I can't be trusted. Well, who are these people? One of them is his assistant treasurer -- a person who works in the bank that's loaned me over $300,000; a person who is just simply saying what Sam told her to say. Another gentleman in there says all I ever do is connected to just being elected. It's interesting that that particular gentleman and his father were helped significantly by me, personally, as well as my administration in opening doors in China. Sam, I think the thing you need to understand in this campaign -- this is not a game.

This is not a game where you can just do anything you want -- rules, no rules, say what you want to say. When you trot out legislators to distort my record, criticize me for what I did when I was in office, when those same legislators -- documented facts -- voted with me on those same issues 75% of the time, you're just playing a game. As far as atrazine and anything I say, I'll document it. I'll provide the evidence. I'll be aggressive, but i'm not going to stoop to the level that you have in terms of just putting out lies and deceptions that simply add to the confusion that people have about Congress. I mean, it's interesting. We start this campaign -- "The real frustration is with Congress and politics as usual and everything being partisan." And that's what I see in my opponent's campaign. Let's talk issues and differences. That's what the people want. [SAM BROWNBACK]: Could I comment? [DEBORAH HOLMES]: A very brief rebuttal, Mr. Brownback, and then a brief rebuttal from Mr. Carlin, if you agree. [SAM BROWNBACK]: I could show you, this is a

graph of the levels of atrazine in Lake Perry during the time I was in office. They went down, that is fact. In our commercial, it is fact John Carlin said he would sign a death penalty and vetoed it four times and now says he for it again. It is fact that he raised taxes. It is fact he said he would fix the utility rates and did not. Those are all factual statements -- all of it documented, all of it well known. I'm pointing out his record as he's attacking mine. The problem is he's not accurate on his attack of my record. [DEBORAH HOLMES]: Mr. Carlin, 30 seconds. [JOHN CARLIN]: The facts on atrazine are clear, and you can talk to people in Atchison today and Riley County who are having serious problems with atrazine. The Kansas City Star didn't cover this as a joke. They took it very seriously in their criticism. In terms of raising taxes, it's interesting Republicans -- people now supporting him, and I understand the partisanship of it -- voted for it. I had Republican support to get those bills through. And I think that kind of communication, when you're not willing to stand up and say, "What would

he have done?" and he just takes the shot- I talk about atrazine -- I'd have put on mandatory controls on behalf of farmers, because quite frankly it's the farmers, the very few that make mistakes; those in industry and utilities that make mistakes that are causing the problem and being totally unfair to the farmers, the vast majority that are playing by the rules in a fair way. [DEBORAH HOLMES]: Nick Haines, you have the next question. [NICK HAINES]: Yes, Mr. Brownback, your opponent has gone to great lengths during this campaign to portray you as someone who is out of touch with the real problems facing Kansans, and he says, "How can you represent represent typical residents in the 2nd District when you own more than $1 million in stock and send your children to exclusive private schools?" Now, I know it's true that there is no sin in being wealthy. How do you react to that criticism? [SAM BROWNBACK]: Well, Nick, I react by pointing out my background. I grew up south of Kansas City in a little town by the name of Parker -- 250 people. My dad and brother still farm there full time. It was a typical family farm operation. We worked all day.

We worked most of the night. It was about as typical of Kansas as you can get. I went to Prairie View High School. I went to K-State and KU -- degrees from both of those institutions. Yes, I was the student body president at K-State. I'm cheering for them this weekend against Nebraska, and I hope that they win. I've been a farm broadcaster. I've taught at the university level -- agricultural law. I've coauthored two books. I'm married with three children. That's a pretty typical background. I was Secretary of Agriculture in the state of Kansas. The Brownbacks -- and you can go to Linn County, where I'm from -- I'm fourth generation. They say of the Brownbacks in Linn County, "They're thick as flies and just as bad." I don't think we're quite all that bad, but there are a lot of us. That's very typical. He goes to great lengths to try to put on these differences about my wife's family. My wife's family's from Topeka and involved there. I don't own millions of dollars in stock, it's

my wife's family. I'm very standard in this. I also think there's a bit of a lack of telling the full truth here when John Carlin doesn't point out that his own children, his daughter went to a private school as well. So I think I'm very typical. I'm from and of the district -- he is not. I've been around this district virtually all my life, and he's lived most of his outside, or worked outside of the district. I think that's very standard. And he tries to hook in my wife's family to try to point out these differences that I think are irrelevant. [DEBORAH HOLMES]: Mr. Carlin, do you have any rebuttal to that? [JOHN CARLIN]: Nick, to your question, the problem I have with my opponent is not anything with his family. It's the fact that he doesn't understand real people and real problems. When he comes out and says on healthcare, "There aren't very many people really left out of the current system," and when a doctor in a public setting had to remind him there's between 200,000 and 300,000 Kansans -- taxpaying, working men and women -- that are left out,

that's the concern I have. He is not sensitive to the real problems we have. When he talks about the fact that you can send somebody to prison and at least they won't have any drug problems there, he doesn't have a very good understanding of what really goes on inside of prisons. When he says he's a conservative, fiscally conservative Republican and proposes a $107 billion tax credit program -- money we don't have, money that's going to have to come from somewhere, because we certainly aren't going to raise taxes, we better not increase the deficit, where's it going to come? -- that's what I'm concerned about. Kansans across this district want real solutions to the real problems we have. [DEBORAH HOLMES]: Carol Whittaker? [CAROL WHITTAKER]: The soon-to-become former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Mike Espy, resigned under pressure over allegations that he accepted gifts and trips from a poultry company that his agency regulates. Yet if Espy were still in Congress, those gifts would be perfectly legal. I'd like to know from both candidates if you're elected to Congress, where will you stand on legislation to abolish gifts from lobbyists and

strengthen disclosure requirements -- like the legislation that recently died in the Senate? [DEBORAH HOLMES]: Mr. Carlin, will you take that first? [JOHN CARLIN]: I would strongly support reform, both in terms of campaign reform as well as reform within the Congress. Campaign reform is absolutely essential. I'm learning every day how disgusting the current system is in terms of the money that's involved, the intense pressure to find the resources to get your message out on a campaign that's too long and too tied to special interests. We must have reform, but it must be across the board. We can't just eliminate PACs and let wealthy continue to fund campaigns. We need to level the playing field. Congress needs to live with the rules they pass, the laws they pass. It is an institution that needs major reform and needs to be opened up. It needs to be a system where the people have an opportunity to participate, where we get away from this coziness back there where somehow they lose touch. My wife and I have made the decision that if I'm elected, we're going to continue to live in the

2nd District to stay close to the people -- to spend as much time in the district getting the job done, working with the people of the 2nd District. [DEBORAH HOLMES]: Mr. Brownback? [SAM BROWNBACK]: I would vote for the legislation to limit the perqs and privileges in office. I find extraordinary disgust with the institution of Congress as I walk and travel up and down this district. People feel like it taxes them and it regulates but it no longer represents -- and it's an institution that's out of touch. That's why I would have voted for the reforms of cutting back on those perqs and privileges in office. I would vote for and support term limits. I've been pushing that for some period of time. We put term limits in in the bylaws of the Board of Agriculture while I was there. I've testified for them at the state level. If we can't get term limits in Congress, I would support term limits for committee chairmen. Subcommittee chairmen can't rule over a committee for years but instead for a period, say, of six years. I don't see why Dan Rostenkowski should rule over us for a period of 13 years that he's chaired Ways and Means. I would call for a cut in salaries of Congressmen -- 10% cut until we balance the budget. We have a

huge deficit problem. I think Congress should lead in that particular area and cut back on their own salary -- and that any law that the Congress passes should apply to the Congress in equal force and effect, so that they can feel the same burden of the laws that the people in this society do. I think we need massive Congressional reform. I have a number of specifics I've laid out in a package and in a paper. And we need to get about that task rapidly before more confidence is lost in the people's government. [DEBORAH HOLMES]: Steve? [STEVE KRASKE]: Just as a followup, where are you, Governor, with term limits? [JOHN CARLIN]: I support term limits. I think it's a reform that would bring freshness to the system. Everyone would know there's an end to this service. I think staffs would take a totally different approach. We'd have much less emphasis on reelection and much more emphasis on the courage to do what we really should be doing for the people, and that's the people's business instead of just politics and reelection. [DEBORAH HOLMES]: Did you have another question? [STEVE KRASKE]: Sure. As you both know, Congress next year will begin working on a new farm bill. I wonder if both of you could just tick off three elements you want to see in that bill? [DEBORAH HOLMES]: Mr. Brownback?

[SAM BROWNBACK]: Yes. One would be conservation reserve program. That's something that I've felt is a very, very good program, and everybody likes it. It's kind of an unusual government program in that. The farmers like it. It saves the soil. It's cut erosion 90%. Conservationists, environmentalists, and the hunting community likes it -- number one. Number two, something that I would push a lot is things like new uses of farm commodities. And I've got here a little piece of plastic -- it's made out of wheat by Midwest Grain Products in Atchison, Kansas; it's in a prototype stage -- that's being developed. I think we have to develop these new markets for agricultural commodities and blending our technology along with our agricultural capacity to create these new markets and new products -- and broaden that vision for agriculture from one just of a food and fiber industry to one that includes food and fuels and pharmaceuticals and feed stocks is a second thing that I would push. And then third, I think we need to continue to push aggressively

our exports. I think that's something that we're going to have to keep pounding and pushing aggressively internationally, because we have a lot of other governments participating in agriculture that put our farmers at a disadvantage. So we're going to have to continue that on a support basis here in the United States as well. [JOHN CARLIN]: This is one area, Steve, where we don't have a lot of difference. And to get on to more questions in the short time we have, first of all I would support the continuation of the conservation reserve program at a level that will allow the farmer to be encouraged to keep it but certainly cut costs, because we're not going be able to continue at the current level of $55 an acre, for an example. I would certainly emphasize research into new uses, new ways to use agricultural raw material. And exports are essential, and we need an aggressive program. Those are three things that I would certainly be very supportive of. [DEBORAH HOLMES]: Nick Haines? [NICK HAINES]: Yes. Let's continue with the three count here, and then I would appreciate as brief answers as possible. You're both talking consistently on the campaign stump about the need to reduce the federal

deficit. Let's cut through the rhetoric, and tell us just three specific programs that you would cut in order to reduce the deficit. Would you like to go-? [DEBORAH HOLMES]: Mr. Carlin? [JOHN CARLIN]: Three specific areas- Well, first of all, because entitlements, which include a large range of endless programs, if they're not included or at least looked at, we're not going to be able to address the deficit issue. That's just a fact. That's just a reality. And for people on Social Security, for an example, if we don't make changes today, our children and grandchildren- there won't be a program. We can do it without impacting current participants, but if we don't make changes, we're going to be in real trouble. So entitlements have got to be look at. I think we need to look at the way we carry out good intentions. We go too far. There's very little of what government does that's just flat wrong. What's really wrong is the way it's carried out to the point where a lot of the money is wasted -- going too far, getting too carried away.

We have limited resources, and we must be much more practical in how we carry out good intentions, but do it more efficiently and more effectively. And third, I'd look at the pork. There's not enough of it to solve the deficit, but it's a crime in terms of what Congress consistently does -- tacking on special projects. You appreciate it when it comes to your community. You like it, but it's costing us. And every time we do something that hurts us on the deficit, we hurt the current economy and we penalize future generations. [SAM BROWNBACK]: Penny-Kasich spending cuts -- $90 billion spending cuts over five years -- I would support. A to Z petition process that didn't make it through this Congress that I hope comes up in the next session -- it would have a budget cutting session of something like 56 hours in front of the Congress -- I would support. Domestic Program Closure Commission is an idea that I've been pushing for some time. Modeled after the Military Base Closing Commission, we have a high level commission looking at all the non-entitlement programs and out of those then identify which ones that were

good when they started but we've either evolved or we can't afford them any longer. And then give Congress one vote on a whole set of these, like what is done in the BRAC -- the military base closing and realignment process -- are three, you know, I've got some others, but that I would support, Nick. [DEBORAH HOLMES]: Mr. Carlin, you have a brief rebuttal. We're getting close -- I should warn you both we're getting close to the time we need to begin closing statements. [JOHN CARLIN]: Ok, I just, Nick, want to add one thing to a discussion of the deficit. You can talk about these cuts, but if you're not going to apply the cuts to the deficit, you haven't solved anything. And my opponent, who talks about all of these things, has also recommended a tax credit program that will cost $107 billion. That's got to be paid for. And you can't answer the question, Nick, in terms of what you're going to do and on the other hand, not in this discussion, support a program where the money is not there. It will either increase the deficit, or we won't be able to do some other things that are vital for the people, like existing programs that are desperately needed for people. [DEBORAH HOLMES]: Twenty second rebuttal, Mr. Brownback. [SAM BROWNBACK]: Ok. We've already stated and

programmed ways of how we would apply and pay for the $500 per child tax credit. I'd also point out that this is a major difference between John and myself. The Jack Kennedy and the Reagan tax cuts actually increased income tax revenue to the federal government. I believe in tax cuts. I believe in holding spending down and that that's going to actually increase your revenues -- and it's happened twice in the past. [DEBORAH HOLMES]: All right, we are ready now for the closing statements. Prior to getting set up in the studio today, I had both candidates pick numbers from a hat for their closing statements. Each candidate will have two minutes to make their closing statements. And John Carlin, you will go first. [JOHN CARLIN]: Thank you very much, Deborah. And thanks to our panelists and those out there that are listening to us this evening. I appreciate the opportunity to have this chance to discuss differences and to communicate to you some of my thoughts of why I'm running for Congress. I'd like to first add a comment to this previous discussion. We can't just

play games in this campaign. All of this has to add up. We're dealing with very real problems, real people in terms of their lives. And to throw out things casually that just don't come together, that doesn't really serve us well. And let me be very specific -- he talks about revenues. The bottom line in the '80s, with the tax cut and the program of the '80s, the deficit doubled and tripled -- more deficit in that period of time than all of the other presidents put together. That's why we have the huge problem today. It sounds good. It may even feel good. But we have a real headache today, because we made wrong decisions. We did what was easy but would get us reelected. That's not what we want or need in the future. I'm running for Congress because of my concern and frustration with Congress itself; my frustration with what they do and what they don't do; my frustration with all the real problems we have and the fact that they're not being addressed. I'm frustrated with all the partisanship in Washington. I'm one who believes we need to work

together, Democrats and Republicans, to solve the real problems that we have -- not the bickering that goes back and forth; not the strictly maneuvering for the next election. That's what we have too much of, and that's what we're getting from my opponent in this campaign when he ignores facts and the reality that real people are affected. I ask for your vote and support on November 8. I do so on behalf of people and real problems and the belief that I can make a difference. Thank you. [DEBORAH HOLMES]: Mr. Brownback, two minutes. [SAM BROWNBACK]: Thank you very much. I think what you've just heard is John Carlin saying that he doesn't have a plan, and I do. And I've put forward a number of specifics in that plan. I've been running for months, walking up and down, traveling up and down this district going door to door, house to house, business to business with three points. One is that we needed to reduce the federal government -- reduce its size, its scope, and its intrusiveness. I've put forward specifics of how I would do that. A second is that we needed to reform the Congress -- that people don't

feel it represents them anymore -- with things like term limits or term limits for committee chairmen. We needed to reform that Congress. And that we need to return to the basic values that built this society -- values of work, values of family, and a recognition of a higher moral authority. We need to make changes in the welfare system, in the tax code, to get people to work -- and changes in welfare and in the tax code to support the family, not to harm it. I've been pushing that theme and that program for some period of time up and down this district, and I've gotten a lot of support for it. I've also had some very touching moments. My best one, I think, was by a fourth grader in Lyndon, Kansas. A young man -- I was explaining to him and to the whole group in his class about how much they owe of the federal deficit and what a big problem this is. And I told him, "You owe $17,000 -- each of you do. That's your share of the federal deficit." This little fourth grader held up his hand. He said, "But Mr. Brownback, how do I owe $17,000? I haven't spent anything!" He was right -- he hasn't. We have. And some of it we spend very wisely,

and some of it we spend very poorly. But under any scenario, now is the time to cut it back. And we need to get about that process of reducing that federal government, of reforming the Congress, of returning to the basic values. That's why I've been running for Congress. I think that is the message that the people of the 2nd District want their Congressman to take to Congress on their behalf to represent them. There is such frustration, because I think people don't think the Congress listens to them anymore. I want to take that message of theirs to represent them in the Congress of the United States. I ask for your vote. [MARY WHITEHEAD]: You've been listening to a broadcast forum with candidates in Kansas's 2nd District Congressional race. The forum was produced at the studios of public TV station KCPT in Kansas City on October 13. Our thanks to the staff at KCPT; the Douglas County League of Women Voters; and the University of Kansas Student Senate Political Awareness Task Force. I'm Mary Whitehead. This is Kansas Public Radio.