KANU News Retention

[MALE ANNOUNCER]: From the Channel 11 studio in Topeka, KTWU and Kansas Public Radio present a political forum with the three candidates from the Third Congressional District of Kansas, which includes Johnson, Wyandotte, Miami, and most of Douglas County. The district is currently served by four-term Republican Congresswoman Jan Meyers of Overland Park. Meyers grew up in Superior, Nebraska. She has degrees from William Woods College in Fulton, Missouri, and the University of Nebraska. She was elected to the Kansas senate in 1972 after serving on the Overland Park city council. Meyers was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1984. Tom Love of Kansas City is the Democratic nominee. Love is a native of Kansas City, where he graduated from Washington High School. He has a business administration degree from Emporia State University. He is currently a state representative from the 39th District. Love buys and rehabilitates older homes. The Libertarian Party candidate is Frank A. Kaul. Kaul is

a native of Shawnee Mission and lives in Lawrence. Kaul has a B.S. in chemistry from the University of Kansas and is currently pursuing an MBA in the University of Kansas School of Business. He is an environmental health and safety specialist. Tonight's moderator is Tama Wagner, statehouse bureau chief for Kansas Public Radio. [TAMA WAGNER]: Welcome to tonight's political forum, the second of three this week with the candidates for Congress. The format for tonight's forum will include questions rotated among the three candidates asked by two other reporters and myself. Each candidate will have two minutes to respond to an initial question. Candidates will then be given follow up questions, to which they'll have a minute and a half to respond. Each candidate will have two minutes at the end of this forum for a closing statement. In a drawing, candidate Meyers was selected to answer the first question, followed by candidate Love and candidate Kaul. Joining me in the questioning tonight are Barbara Joseph, the political and federal affairs reporter for the Topeka

Capital-Journal, and Steve Kraske, the statehouse correspondent for the Kansas City Star. Ms. Joseph will ask the first question, and it will be directed to candidate Meyers. [BARBARA JOSEPH]: Candidate Meyers, what is the one issue that most distinguishes you from the other candidates for Congress in this district? [JAN MEYERS]: I would say the issue of experience, probably, is the one thing that distinguishes me. We've heard a lot about change lately, and I think I have been in Congress for seven and a half years fighting every day for change. I have worked to cut and freeze spending. The reason this has not been terribly successful, is because only about 40 percent of Congress votes like I do. Sixty percent is still very much a tax-and-spend Congress. But I have been deeply concerned about the deficit and the debt, and I have been there

working. And I think that I have represented the district very well in terms of cutting and freezing spending. Prior to going to Congress, I had experience at the local and at the state level, and I think that this has served me extremely well. I know the needs and the concerns. I have worked for KU Med Center, for the Regent's Center, for Kansas University, at the local level, the state level, and the federal level. I think I know and understand the highway needs of the district, and have worked very hard to serve them, and I think with a great degree of success over the last years. I think experience is one thing that sets me apart and information and knowledge about the district. Thank you. [BARBARA JOSEPH]: Thank you, candidate Meyers. Candidate Love, same question. [TOM LOVE]: I would suppose the number one issue

that would separate me from not only the incumbent, Jan Meyers, but a lot of people who run for office, is the fact that I am not accepting special interest PAC contributions. I feel that that particular issue is significant. I feel like it's a problem that we have with our country -- when people are elected to represent their district, and they accept campaign contributions from special interests ranging from Litton Industries, which manufactures submarines in Mississippi, to the Hughes Missile Aircraft missiles that's manufactured in California, and various aircraft industries. When they accept campaign contributions from savings and loans, which we're all aware that has created a significant problem in our country, the deregulation of savings and loans, and allowing people to invest our money

in speculation and junk bonds and commercial real estate and buying stocks. It's cost us about $500 billion, $2,000 for every man, woman, and child. When we allow our candidates to accept campaign contributions from special interest groups like the health and insurance industry -- in fact, in this particular case, over $100,000. When our leadership people in Congress, the top leadership people, have each, the top six, the top three in the Senate and House, have accepted a quarter of million dollars from just the health industry alone, it's little wonder that we are being stonewalled on important legislation that needs to take place and serve the community. [BARBARA JOSEPH]: Thank you, candidate Love. Same question, candidate Kaul. [FRANK KAUL]: I think the main issue that distinguishes me from my opponents is the difference in the view between Libertarians and the Democrats and Republicans on the overall role of government in the lives of the citizens. I think when the Founding Fathers developed the

Constitution, they envisioned a document which said that this government could only go so far, and then beyond that there were extreme limits to be placed on the power and scope of government. But today, the Republicans and Democrats have both taken the federal government far beyond that limited role that was found in the Constitution. And we believe that the civil liberties of the citizens of this country are in great danger, due to the attacks that are made under the War on Drugs, under the fight against crime, and against a number of programs which are supposedly going to do the citizens of this country very good things, but tend to backfire and sap our monies out from taxes, and generally prove ineffective solutions to the

problems that face our country today. So, I think the main thing that distinguishes me from the other candidates is that as a Libertarian, I really strongly support a drastically cut back role for the federal government in the lives of our citizens. We need to let the people- return the resources to the people, so that they can solve the problems that they see in their lives themselves, instead of sending the money away to the federal government for them to take their cut and then send it back to us, provided we ask our congressperson in the right way. [BARBARA JOSEPH]: Thank you, candidate Kaul. [TAMA WAGNER]: Our second question will come from Steve Kraske, and it will be directed to candidate Love. [STEVE KRASKE]: Candidate Love, one of the basic political themes around the country this year is change. Why should voters believe that your election will bring about change? [TOM LOVE]: Well, my election, in and of itself, will only make change in our one district. And there's 425 members of the House. I noticed when I was a representative in Topeka, there was 125 members. And to make a

change, it took 63 votes on the house floor. And then it had to go through the senate, and then there were compromises that were worked out, and it's not easy to bring about change. But when we have people who've been in office for a number of years, particularly people who have made a profession out of being a politician or elected official, then we end up with people who are- their number one goal becomes to- is to get re-elected, and they serve special interests. One of the reasons I'm for term limits, is I would like for people to imagine for a moment, if all the chairmans of the committees -- and I know you've been to Topeka -- that if all the chairmans of the committees were in their last term, who would they serve? Most of the people that run for office -- and I'm sure Jan Meyers is one of them, I've heard very good things about her -- but most people who run for office have a lot of integrity. I feel like they're very honest, but their number one goal is to get reelected. And if they don't have to worry about the

special interest campaign money coming into their account, and they start serving the people, their last term when they're in leadership positions -- I think there'd be a tremendous change. But that has to take place step by step. Our community is responsible for our community. That's why I don't accept any money outside of my district, or outside of this district. I didn't as a state representative. I don't want that outside influence coming in. That our district is responsible for electing someone who will represent them, and hopefully other districts will do the same, and I think we'll have a change. [TAMA WAGNER]: Thank you, candidate Love. I think I would like to follow up on that. You've been insinuating that incumbents are influenced by special interests because they receive PAC money. Can you specifically single out a vote that Congresswoman Meyers has made that reflects those insinuations? [TOM LOVE]: Well, let me give you an example of what took place in Topeka that a lot of

people are aware of, and lot of people wanted changed [TAMA WAGNER]: No, I'm talking specifically about candidate Meyers. [TOM LOVE]: There's not any one. Well, I would say that the lack of leadership in instituting re-regulating the savings and loans is a prime example. A lot of people were afraid of taking them on. They're afraid of instituting healthcare reform because of the lobbyists. People in Topeka were afraid, for example, of even offering up the concept that we should do away with the income tax rebate, which is something that I was the first person in Topeka in the last 15 years to carry an amendment on the house floor, because people were so afraid, even of the other members, of doing something that might upset their apple cart. And so there's a fear. And there's a fear of- there's a desire for power and reelection, and I saw

that consistently in Topeka. And I think we need to be more concerned about representing the people who've elected us, first. [TAMA WAGNER]: Thank you, candidate Love. Candidate Kaul, same question. [FRANK KAUL]: Well I think it's obvious that the election of a Libertarian candidate to the United States Congress will be sending a very clear message to the people in Congress that the American people want a lot less government. That they want to return to the role of limited government, more in the mold of the Founding Fathers. I think that a Libertarian would be a strong force in pushing for those things. Our presidential candidate, Andre Marrou, was elected to the Alaska state legislature, and he had an effect far out of proportion to his one seat. He lead the repeal for an income tax in Alaska, he was widely considered the conscience of the legislature by people in the newspapers and such in Alaska. And I

think that as a Libertarian, I've stated very clearly my, my vision for what kind of government we have, and I would be elected with that kind of mandate, and so I would feel free to work towards that kind of government. I would not be beholden to any particular interests, except those interests that want to see less government in the lives of Americans. [TAMA WAGNER]: Thank you, candidate Kaul. Candidate Meyers, same question. [JAN MEYERS]: Thank you. Nothing against Mr. Love, but I will say that if he is elected, the first vote that he will be asked to cast when he gets there is to vote for leadership. And he will, of course because of his party, vote for the same leadership that has been leading the House for the last 38 years. We need a change in leadership. I think the most dramatic change that we could see in Washington, would be if we would have another 20 or 30 Republicans voted into the House of Representatives. We urgently

need people who will vote for a smaller role for the federal government, more responsibility at the state and local and personal and private level. We have been working very hard on this for the last six or seven years. I feel like I am the change. The first year that I got there, we voted to freeze defense spending, and defense spending has been coming down very steadily ever since. I would like to take just the time remaining and say that in relation to savings and loans, which Mr. Love, I would agree with him very strongly, and that in 1986 when President Reagan suggested that there, that there be $15 billion voted to be paid for by the savings and loans to recapitalize that fund, that we had a vote in the House. It did not pass. I voted for it, and I was the

only one in the Kansas delegation who did. [TAMA WAGNER]: Thank you, candidate Meyers. The next question is from me. Again, I'm Tama Wagner with Kansas Public Radio. And this is to candidate Kaul. An estimated 35 million Americans can't afford basic medical care. How do you propose this nation solve its current healthcare crisis? [FRANK KAUL]: Well I think the first thing I'd like to say about that is that I don't think that the solution to this crisis is to increase the government's role in the healthcare system. I feel that it's government's meddling in the healthcare system of this country that has largely created the problem that we have today. The government is already one of the single largest consumers of healthcare and the paperwork involved with that. The medicare enterprise and similar programs is one of the driving forces behind the cost of medical care. Another driving force behind the cost of medical care is the tax incentives that the government gives to businesses to provide first

dollar coverage for all their employees, which really drives up the demand for unnecessary services. We have a disjoint between supply and demand in this country, and between the demand of healthcare and who's paying for it. If the consumer doesn't have any concept or concern for how much medical care they're demanding, especially in the maintenance area and the first dollar area of healthcare, there is an unlimited amount of healthcare they will demand. And if they don't get that healthcare, or if they don't think that they're getting the right tests or they're not getting the right attention from their doctor, they'll go to another doctor and demand it from them. And if they think that the tests- not enough tests were done, then they'll sue for malpractice. And, you know, we have a problem with malpractice in this country also. I don't think that more government involvement is really a solution to that problem. I would support

donations to a medical, individual medical account that would be allowed a tax credit so that the consumer could afford to pay those first dollar medical bills and yet would still be concerned about how much those things cost, because they get to keep that money if they didn't spend it. [TAMA WAGNER]: Thank you, candidate Kaul. Candidate Meyers, same question. [JAN MEYERS]: Repeat the question for me? [TAMA WAGNER]: An estimated 35 million Americans can no longer afford basic medical care. How do you propose the nation solve this current healthcare crisis? [JAN MEYERS]: I'm co-sponsoring a bill that would provide that a basic package of benefits be provided. And this basic package of benefits would be developed by a group of consumers, providers, insurance companies, of all of those who were involved. And then that package of benefits could be offered through all businesses and by all insurance companies. It would do

away with state mandates and there would be no pre-existing conditions. Because it could be offered by all insurance companies and would be offered to all businesses, it would mean that it would be portable. Nobody would be locked into a job because they had a preexisting condition and couldn't move because they'd lose their health insurance. This would then mean that costs could rise within a band. If similar groups, some had a lot of health problems, some had none, the group that had no health problems -- their costs would stay the same, and those who had several health problems, it could rise to the top of the band. But we wouldn't see healthcare costs doubling. And we have found that one of the reasons why small businesses don't offer health insurance is because of fear of future costs. They're afraid they'll institute a program, their costs will double next year. So controlling costs is

extremely important. Also to help control costs, I think we have to have medical malpractice reform. We have to have simplified billing, possibly electronic billing. We should offer a 100 percent deduction to those self-employed people who are willing to provide insurance real incentives to offer health insurance. Of the 36 million Americans who have no insurance whatsoever, 26 million of them are in a family where someone is working. So if we could make sure that this was offered through the workplace, we could resolve a great deal of our problem. [TAMA WAGNER]: Thank you, candidate Meyers. We have a follow up. [BARBARA JOSEPH]: Candidate Meyers, Congress didn't act on healthcare this session. When can Americans, some of them in desperate situations, expect to see some meaningful healthcare reform? [JAN MEYERS]: I agree with you. I would like to see it sooner rather than

later. However, I will say, Barbara, that I am not surprised that it was not enacted this time. There just is no consensus yet. This is going to be an enormously expensive thing to provide. The Democrats are split badly between national health insurance, a single payer national health insurance, and a program called the "pay or play" plan where it would be mandated that businesses provide health insurance, and if they didn't, pay 10 percent or, the percentage varies, but approximately ten percent, of their payroll into a national fund, so that then the benefits could be paid for those who don't have health insurance through their work. Now the Republicans have coalesced more around a program such as I just described and the president agrees to that kind of a program, except instead of providing it through workplace, he would

provide insurance by tax incentives to middle income people and vouchers for very poor people, so that it would not be a workplace-based program. The Republicans in the House do have a workplace-based program, but all in all, it did does provide for incentives and access to better care for people. [TAMA WAGNER]: Thank you candidate Meyers. Candidate Love, same question. [TOM LOVE]: After watching the debates and listening to what Ross Perot said, I think I need to mention just the simple fact that if you want someone to work on something, to actually get something done, you need to elect people who will go after it. I've also introduced legislation in Topeka as a state representative, despite Ms. Meyers' comment about lack of experience, I've served on the Public Health and Welfare committee for two years.

One piece of legislation that I introduced was reported to save millions and millions of dollars in the state of New Jersey. There's lots of really good plans. This particular plan would take people who do not have healthcare, and they show up at the emergency room because they have no place else to go, the cost could be four times as expensive as going to a family practitioner or health clinic. Instead of allowing that emergency room to go ahead and care for them and then end up charging everybody else, like twelve dollars for an aspirin and all these other ways they have of raising the cost, they would be required to refer that family or that person to a clinic and have them take care of it at a much lesser cost. But our healthcare field, or healthcare industry, has- the cost has doubled in the last six years, and if I was in the healthcare field, thinking only strictly of myself, or the insurance field, I would like to see it double in three years. The point is, is that there's about

400 different plans that's been introduced in Congress, and there's been a lack of action. We need people who are not afraid to go ahead and do what's right. There are 16- we rank 16th in the world in healthcare, and yet we spend the most amount of money. Ms. Meyers just mentioned that if we do do something, it's going to be enormously expensive, when in fact, we're going to save money. These people- our healthcare field is way out of line. We need to control the punitive damages that are awarded, and a lot of other things, but I don't think the way to solve it is through inaction. [TAMA WAGNER]: Thank you, candidate Love. We do have a followup, Steve Kraske from the Kansas city Star. [STEVE KRASKE]: Are you willing to raise taxes, candidate Love, to cover the millions of people who aren't covered right now? [TOM LOVE]: No, I don't think it's going to be expensive to provide a basic, preventive healthcare plan. We had people that came to us on the Public Health and Welfare Committee that have problems, for example, they had to choose between buying medicine and buying food, literally. And I know

Clinton mentioned that in the debates. But we actually had people come to our committee and say, "We have to make that kind of choice." And they had end-stage renal disease, a problem with their kidneys. And they said that we will either have to do- we have to make that choice, and occasionally when we make that choice -- because we always choose to buy food for our kids -- we end up going to the emergency room. Sometimes, sometimes they don't make it. And all they wanted us to do was to set up a person at the KU med center to provide low-cost distribution of that medicine. It would have cost us $25,000. And that was much, much less expensive. We could also provide- take the pregnant women and infants in Kansas, which I also proposed, to 185 percent of the poverty level. The average cost for a premature child in Kansas could be $20,000. And we're only helping infants up to 150 percent of the poverty level, and it would have been-

just a small investment would have saved us a tremendous amount of money, about four dollars for every dollar invested. [TAMA WAGNER]: Thank you, candidate Love. Our next question will be from Barbara Joseph, and it will be directed to candidate Love. [BARBARA JOSEPH]: Candidate Love, there's been a lot of public outrage over the perqs and payraises that Congress gives itself. Many people see such privileges as separating Congress members from the concerns of the average person. Will you pledge now to forego certain perqs and pay raises if you are elected? And please be specific. [TOM LOVE]: In fact, I've already pledged that in the primary. I was very frustrated when I heard Representative Meyers, and she would answer the question about the pay raise before I did at the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce. And the statement was, "I didn't vote for it, but I'm going to accept it after the election." And people in Topeka, I'm sure, are aware and the informed public are aware of the fact that in '88, the

Kansas legislature voted themselves a pension based on a $102,000 a year income, when in fact, we only make $16-$17,000 a year. It cost the state of Kansas over $400,000. I not only didn't accept that pension plan when I came up here, I sponsored legislation to rescind it, and it was rescinded. And I want people to know that this $25,000 pay raise, when I talked to people out in the public, they don't accept this political response of, "I always vote 'no' on pay raises, and then turn around and accept it." They do not accept that explanation. And I intend not to accept it, and I intend to sponsor legislation to do away with it, because I want to represent what people want us to do. And they don't want that raise. When Congress just recorded the highest deficit in American history, and turned and gave themselves a $25,000 pay raise, it was like a slap in the face to the public. That's more than a lot of people make in a whole year. [BARBARA JOSEPH]: Thank you, candidate Love. I do have a followup question, candidate Love. What perqs and

privileges do you think are necessary to the office, if any? [TOM LOVE]: Well, one of the problems that I see -- we were schooled as freshmen legislators that right from the very get-go, that we were supposed to go ahead and use the "franking privilege." Each legislator in Topeka can put out x amount of mail each week that we're in session. And we were told that this was the best way to help get reelected. In fact, the very first day, they said, "If you don't have a list of people to mail to, just mail the people that helped you in your campaign and just tell them what a wonderful time, you know, and you appreciate their help, and here you are in Topeka, and so forth and so on." And Congress has wasted $74 million dollars -- this last Congress -- up until the first quarter of this year in junk mailings. Pictures of themselves, you know, really not truly informing the public, when in fact that the Congress has access to the media, and they can go ahead and send out press releases, which some, you know, most every one of them do do. But they send out these mass mailings. In fact,

the average congressperson spends more money in mass mailings at taxpayers' expense to promote themselves, than the average challenger. And that's just not right. It's just- they've set the rules, they've set the campaign laws to guarantee their reelection. 96 percent of the people who ran last time were reelected, and it's time to change. And I'm going to work to stop that. In fact, that's what I did when I was a representative, didn't send out once piece of "franking." [TAMA WAGNER]: Thank you, candidate Love. Candidate Kaul, same question. [FRANK KAUL]: Well, I think that there are far too many perqs and privileges in Congress. The franking privilege is one that is abused by many congresspeople. But the things that particularly bother me, and that I think really reflects the attitude of the United States Congress towards the- their position relative to the other citizens of the country,

are on laws and pensions and things like Social Security. One time, Congress didn't have to pay into that plan, because, you know, the American people needed- had to pay into that plan, but Congress was exempt from that thing. Any law that Congress passes, which they then exempt themselves from, I think is a very telling thing. The cost of running Congress has just gone through the roof. They have multiple offices, I can't even keep track -- haven't even tried to keep track -- of all the perqs and privileges that are associated with this office. I don't think that you need one office for public- a public front, and one office is a private getaway, and you don't need to build another federal office building or an annex to, you know, house all the little nooks and crannies that people can "get away" in. But really the thing that bothers me

most is when Congress passes a law that does not apply equally to themselves as to the rest of the America people. [TAMA WAGNER]: Thank you, candidate Kaul. Candidate Meyers, same question. [JAN MEYERS]: Well thank you very much. Well I don't think Congress should have perqs and privileges, and I think that's the way I have lived for the last 7 1/2 years. I make it very clear to people that I had no bad checks, I had no unpaid restaurant bills. I give back 75 percent of my frank allowance. I spent less to run my office and returned more to the federal government from my office fund than any other congressman from Missouri or Kansas. I have voted "no" on all the pay raises. And if one happened in spite of my vote, I gave the increase back until after the next election. And the reason I do that is because I feel very strongly that the salary for this office is a

contract between me and the voters of this district. That they should have a right to vote on me knowing what the salary for the office is. So I always returned the full increase until after the next election, and I am very open and very honest about that with my constituents. I do one mailing, one mass mailing, a year, one newsletter, and one notification of a town meeting annually. Other than that I spend my "frank" only to answer letters that are written to me. Of course, since I've been there, I was first elected in 1984, we do pay full Social Security, there is no break on Social Security. And I would agree very much with Mr. Kaul, and I am co-sponsoring legislation that would say that whenever Congress makes a law, that that same law has to apply equally to Congress. And that has

come up in relation to individual pieces of legislation, and I have always voted "yes." Of course, it doesn't alway pass, but I've always voted "yes." [TAMA WAGNER]:Thank you, candidate Meyers. We do have a followup from Barbara Joseph. [BARBARA JOSEPH]: Ms. Meyers, in light of the bank and post office scandals, and I believe you were implicated in the post office improprieties, what would you personally do to restore peoples' faith in their government as an ethical body that has their interests at heart? [JAN MEYERS]: Well, I think we're going to have to work very, very hard at it. I think the public is extremely disillusioned, and I would like to refer to the post office problem. There were a tremendous number of problems in the post office. There were people involved in drug taking, money embezzling, and all of that, and I am not part of any of those problems. However, there was an overall study of the post office, and one of the things that they looked at was individuals who had private post office boxes. I've had one

in Union Station, a few blocks from our office, and thought that was a very good and positive thing to do because it kept any campaign-related mail or private mail from coming to my office. It went to the private post office box. However, the House post office called, volunteered to pick up our mail, and the young woman in my office said yes. That was a mistake. I don't think it was really a terrible offense but it was a mistake, because it meant that government-paid workers were carrying mail to my office. Now, I did not know about this, and when I found out about it, we dropped the post office box immediately. So that's been four years ago. I had a post office from late '85 to '88, I think, and have not had one the last four years. I plead guilty only to not knowing who carried the mail to my office. [TAMA WAGNER]: Thank you, candidate

Meyers. Our next question will come from Steve Kraske, and it will be directed to candidate Kaul. [STEVE KRASKE]: Candidate Kaul, abortion continues to be one of the most divisive issues facing the country, and it's also one of the bigger issues in this race here. Would you outline your position and indicate whether you would support legislation to make the Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion the law of the land? [FRANK KAUL]: As a Libertarian I strongly believe that your body is your own property. And consequently I'm strongly opposed to any restrictions on a woman's right to choose an abortion as opposed to other restrictions about what one might do with their own body. At the same time, I think abortion is a strong moral issue for some people, and therefore I am opposed to federal funding for abortions. Beyond that, I'm very much a pro-choice candidate. The

bill which was introduced in the legislature to put in to the force of law, the effect of Roe vs. Wade, I think the intent of that bill is laudable. I do not support the overturning of Roe v. Wade. If that bill were to come before me and I had to vote on it, part of that would depend on whether it included provisions for federal funding of abortions. Beyond that, I would probably vote for that bill. I would almost certainly vote for that bill, because I think that it's important for a woman to have the right to choose. I would do so, however, with a heavy heart to think that we would have had to have propped up with legislation a right, which I believe is constitutional and should be held up in courts. [TAMA WAGNER]: Thank you, candidate Kaul. Candidate Meyers, same question. [JAN MEYERS]: Well. throughout my career in government I have worked for programs to prevent abortions. I have worked for family planning,

for young women who were pregnant and needed some assistance in order to carry that child to term and to place the child for adoption. However, I do know, there are a number of individuals for whom this is an enormously difficult choice. I think you would say I am in favor of the Freedom of Choice Act, which attempts to put into statute Roe v. Wade, and says that whether to have an abortion or not is a choice very much up to the woman and her physician, or the family and the physician. The states can make limitations, depending upon- except to save the life and health of the mother. It has been amended to say that the states can also have some voice in notification of another

adult in the case of an abortion in relation to a teenager, and it has also been amended to add a conscience clause which would say that if someone does not want to participate in an abortion, they don't have to. I intend to vote for the Freedom of Choice Act if it comes before me in that condition. I hesitate to make promises, because sometimes things are changed and amended so that you cannot go for them later. But if it gets before me with those amendments added, I intend to vote for it. The thing that I am really most interested in, is family planning. And I think it's exceptionally important that we make plans to provide family planning for people who need and want it, not only in this country, but assisting other nations of the world. [TAMA WAGNER]: Thank you, Candidate Meyers. Candidate Love, same question. [TOM LOVE]: Am I in favor of Roe v. Wade., was that the question again? [STEVE KRASKE]: Abortion continues to be

one of the most divisive issues facing the country. [AUDIO ENDS]