KANU News Retention: Election Project

[MALE ANNOUNCER]: The following program is a special presentation of Kansas Public Radio. The views expressed are not necessarily those of Kansas Public Radio, its affiliates, staff, or management. [MARY WHITEHEAD]: Welcome to a special presentation of Kansas Public Radio's Election Project. I'm Mary Whitehead. During the next hour and a half, you'll hear two public forums with candidates in the 2nd and 3rd Congressional District races. We begin with the 3rd District, where Republican Jan Meyers has held the office since 1985. This year, she's being challenged by Democrat Judy Hancock, an international lawyer from Prairie Village. Meyers and Hancock squared off October 20 on the University of Kansas campus in an event sponsored by the Douglas County League of Women Voters and the KU Student Senate Political Awareness Task Force. The moderator is Ellen Reid Gold, along with panelists Lee Ketzel of the League of Women Voters; Scott Holeman of Channel 6; David Stevens of the Student Senate Political Awareness Task Force; Ken Collier, KU professor of political science; and the University Daily Kansan's Steve Marino, who asked the first question.

[STEVE MARINO]: Representative Meyers, you signed on with the Republicans in the House of Representatives to enact the Contract with America. That contract includes among other things to enact a balanced budget and tax limitation amendment; two, enact a $500 per child tax and repeal the marriage tax penalty; three, to raise the Social Security earnings limit and repeal the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance; and four, to create a small business incentives and enact a capital gains tax cut. In a time of federal belt tightening, this contract appears to reduce the amount the federal government takes in without supplementing the revenues in any way. My question to you is how do you propose to pay for this Contract with America? [JAN MEYERS]: Well some of these things save money, and some of them cost money. The balanced budget amendment and the line-item veto are, of course, at no cost. In deterring crime we take out some of the pork

from the Crime Bill that we just passed, and that saves money. Welfare reform saves $40 billion -- these are five year totals. The most costly -- without running through all of these -- the most costly item in this is $107 billion over five years, and it would be a $500 per child tax credit annually. Now there's two different ways of looking at this. A $500 per child tax credit means $107 billion in revenue foregone over a period of the next five years. It also means, if you look at it just statically, we've lost $107 billion. But when you put $500 or $1000 or $1500 back into people's pockets,

they might buy that refrigerator or that car, and it stimulates the economy. The same thing is true, we think, of the capital gains tax. It does mean revenue foregone, if you have some kind of special treatment for capital gains. It is also a stimulus to the economy. We think that over a five year period, the cost would be $147 billion -- if you look at this in a totally static way. If you look at it with more of a dynamic eye, that some of these things will stimulate the economy and actually bring in more money -- it won't be that costly. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Time. [JAN MEYERS]: And then we think that we do have some suggestions for saving money. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: And Judy Hancock will answer the same question. [JUDY HANCOCK]: Thank you. I think that I would agree with that liberal bastion, the Wall

Street Journal, when they editorialized against this Contract "on" America, not "for" America by calling it "pie in the sky." When you strip it all away, what they're proposing to do is cut taxes, especially on the wealthy; increase defense spending by $70 billion; and balance the budget in five years. Do you think that's possible? Does anyone in this room think that's possible? And you know that Child Tax Credit she just talked about? Guess what -- if you're a family of four making $190,000 a year, you get a $2,000 tax credit. If you're a family of four making $19,000 a year, you don't get any tax benefit. Does that makes sense? It's a tax cut for the wealthy. And yet a child tax cut, it seems to me, ought to be for the benefit of families who are having trouble making the cost of living, all right? This is a gimmick. This is more of the same Washington double talk. This

contract is an outrageous example of what's wrong with Washington. And I think it's outrageous that our incumbent swore a blind oath of loyalty to a bunch of party bosses back in Washington rather than trying to serve the people, the real people she's supposed to serve back here in the 3rd District. The final comment I'd make is that contract that she signed will among other things revive the gag rule with respect to abortion counseling in clinics that receive federal funding. And yet Jan Meyers sent a letter asking for contributions from my campaign manager, and it says, "I have opposed the onerous gag rule." And yet the contract that she signed would revive the gag rule. Which is it, Jan? Are you for the gag rule or against it? [JAN MEYERS]: I've spoken against it and voted against it. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Thank you. And the next question is from Lee Ketzel

[APPLAUSE] to Judy Hancock. [LEE KETZEL]: Ok, Miss Hancock, do you agree with those who point to universal coverage and cost containment as the twin key goals of healthcare reform? If not, why not? If so, how do the reforms you support meet those goals of universal coverage and cost containment? [JUDY HANCOCK]: I do believe that we have to strive for universal coverage, and I believe that we must contain costs, because the federal budget deficit is fueled in large part by soaring healthcare costs in this country. And I don't think, and many experts don't think, that we will be able to get the federal budget deficit under control until we have meaningful cost containment in the healthcare industry. Now I want to make clear, particularly since my opponent always says that I'm this Democrat that she's running against as if there's a whole army of us up here every time we debate, and I want to make it clear she's only running against me. Well this Democrat happened to differ from my president when it came to his healthcare proposal. I

did not support key elements of the plan that he presented, including his proposal for a national health board, mandated regional alliances, and employer mandates. But having said that, I think that we have to strive to bring more people into the system. We have 30 to 35 million Americans who are not presently covered. They're working, tax paying Americans. I think we need to encourage pooling arrangements by small business. I think we need to require insurance companies to provide coverage for preexisting conditions and to ensure portability. I think we need massive simplification and standardization of billing practices and record keeping in insurance processing forms. And finally, I think we need to address in a reasonable, acceptable compromise medical malpractice reform, because I think that there is defensive medicine being practiced. I think that we have to have a rational, measured approach to this, because we are dealing with one-seventh of the American economy, and you can't turn that on a dime. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Thank you.

Scott Holeman? [JAN MEYERS]: No, no -- excuse me. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Jan Meyers. [JAN MEYERS]: My opponent has gone back and forth on mandates. I am very strongly against employer mandates, and the plan that I have supported would do four or five things. One, it would remove barriers which we now have to pooling. It would require that all insurance companies offer a basic plan of benefits. Now nobody has to buy it, and the insurance companies can offer anything else they want to, but the basic plan of benefits has to be one of the things that they offer. And we think when all 1600 insurance companies in the United States are offering a basic plan of benefits that it will become the business plan even without a mandate. This will remove barriers to pooling and sharing of risk. It will also contribute to portability. When you resolve the problems of

portability, you also resolve a great many of the problems of preexisting condition exclusion. The other things are medical malpractice reform, uniform simplified billing. Experts have told us for a long time that just those two things -- medical malpractice reform and uniform simplified billing -- would save billions of dollars annually in healthcare costs. And finally some kind of a reward for doing what you should do. A greater deductibility of premiums for both the small business person and for the self-employed and for the individual who is paying for insurance. And finally the plan would say that the government would assist those under 200% percent of poverty. 100% of poverty is about $13,000 a year, and so 200% of poverty is not quite double that. So the government would

assist those low-income individuals. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Thank you. [JAN MEYERS]: Thank you. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Now Scott Holeman to Jan Meyers. [SCOTT HOLEMAN]: Congresswoman Meyers, what should be the U.S. role in Haiti, and how long should our troops be there? [JAN MEYERS]: I think I would have opposed our sending troops to Haiti. I think whenever you send troops into harm's way, you should have a way in, and be able to accomplish something, and have a way back out again. And the last time we went to Haiti, we stayed there for 20 years. There is enormous class hatred in Haiti, and I am deeply concerned that the American troops are going to be caught in the middle of it. We did not mandate in the House a time to get out, because the military advised strongly against it. They

said, "Don't set a specific date." I think the Republicans wanted to set a date of January 1, and when the military felt so strongly that this would be a very hurtful thing, we backed off. I think the Republicans would like to get out by January 1. The Democrats had a tentative date of March 1. They backed off also at setting a hard and fast date. When we leave, the U.N. troops will come in. If we can leave and the U.N. troops come in, the U.S. troops will still be at least one-half of that contingent, but we do have some assistance from the world community. I just think that we will be unable to accomplish anything in Haiti. All of us want to see Aristide restored. He won the election, and we certainly don't want to have the dictators in power down there after they

threw out the elected president. But for us to intervene, I think, means that we are going to have to be there for a very long time and that we're going to be standing between the two different classes who are fighting. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Thank you. Judy Hancock. [JUDY HANCOCK]: Thank you. I did oppose the proposed invasion that the president announced actually in the same night that I was in this room giving a speech to a group of students. And Dave Toplikar, if he's here, came up after my speech and asked me where I stood on the president's speech, and I said, "Well, I haven't heard it since I was here speechifying myself. But if he's talking invasion, I oppose it." Because I did not believe and I do not believe that the United States has a critical national security interest in Haiti. Having said that, we're now there. And obviously we have to support our troops who are there.

I hope that we will be able to extricate ourselves as quickly as possible, consistent with the mission that we now have -- since we're there. Having extricated ourselves as quickly as possible without a firm date being set by the Congress, which I think would be imprudent militarily, I think that the United States should, through the international and multilateral lending organizations, attempt to provide assistance to Haiti, both on a bilateral and a multilateral basis consistent with our overall foreign aid program to try to provide assistance to them in their efforts to rebuild their democracy. But I did not support the invasion that was proposed by the president, and I am glad that President Carter was able to render some valuable assistance in preventing that possible bloody contingency. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Thank you. The next question is going to be from Ken Collier, who is representing the

audience, so he's going to assemble audience questions into some kind of format and ask them. This will go to Judy Hancock, please. [KEN COLLIER]: All right. Related somewhat to Haiti, somebody from the audience wants to ask about defense spending, and their question is there's talk of increasing defense spending again so that the United States can cover more than one disturbance at a time. Would you support legislation to increase defense spending? [JUDY HANCOCK]: I'm going to give what sounds like a weasel answer, but I think it's the only prudent answer. It depends. It depends upon the circumstances in which the United States finds itself at any given time. Recently at another joint appearance my opponent was criticizing the sharp decrease in defense spending that the United States has experienced in the past few years. And I indicated that I thought that the decline in our defense spending was attributable in part to the fact that we won the Cold War and we have reduced tensions vis-à-vis the former Soviet Union and its former Bloc allies.

Having said that, we have to recognize that the world is in some ways a more uncertain place now than it was when we had the dichotomy of power between the Soviet Bloc and the U.S. Bloc, in that we have as we see in Iraq, as we see in North Korea, trouble spots popping up all over the world, and the United States must be prepared to meet those obligations it's assumed on both a bilateral and a multilateral treaty basis. But having said that, you know we all remember a few years ago a talk about a peace dividend -- remember that? When we ended the Cold War, we all thought that there was going to be resources freed up for things here at home. And while I believe very much in being mindful of our commitments abroad and protecting our vital national security interest, I think we need to know that our future security depends as much on our economic security as our military security. And we have needs here at home that we must take care of while keeping a close watch on our adversaries and potential adversaries abroad.

[ELLEN REID GOLD]: Thank you. Jan Meyers? [JAN MEYERS]: I have advocated an increase in defense spending. When President Bush made his cuts, he made them being mindful of the fact that the Cold War was over, of course. He cut the army divisions from 18 to 12, and President Clinton has cut them further to 10. President Bush cut from 36 Spider Wings to 26, and President Clinton has cut them further to 20. 540 ships. President Clinton says 340. It is being cut so dramatically that I think we are going to be left with a hollow military. Now, I started my interest in government as president of the League of Women Voters in Shawnee Mission. I am not what you would call a hawk, but I can recognize when a

decrease has been too sharp and too steep. When I first got to Congress, defense spending was 29% of the budget; now it's 18% of the budget. When I want an increase in defense spending, I am not talking about intercontinental ballistics missiles or any kind of sophisticated weapons system. I am talking about readiness. When you're going to send young men and women into harm's way, you better be very sure that they are well prepared, that the equipment is in good shape, and that it's well maintained. I don't think that's happening now, and neither does the military. And on this subject, I try to listen carefully to our military advisers. I'm going to say- take 10 seconds and go back to Steve Martino's question to say that that- [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Your time is up. [JAN MEYERS]: All right. I'll get back to you later, Steve. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: And David Stevens to Jan Meyers. [DAVID STEVENS]: Representative

Meyers, would each of you outline your general philosophy on federal student grant dollars, especially PELL Grants, and would you support targeting these grants so that there would be fewer given out, but each would be worth more? [JAN MEYERS]: I have been extremely supportive of education, and last night in Baker, debate at Baker, my opponent said I was going to cut student loans by $5 million, and 3500 students would suffer. And I have absolutely no idea where she came up with that figure. She waves a piece of paper in the air and says, "I called the Department of Education." Well, I called the Department of Education, too, and nothing we have ever done nor nothing that I have ever

supported would cut student loan aid. In other words, I haven't cut it at all in any authorization bill, in any appropriation bill. It's not in the Contract with America, which she says it is, and so I am at a loss. If she will show me her piece of paper I will be, I will be- [LAUGHTER] Well, you've waved it at me several times. [JUDY HANCOCK]: I'll give it to you. [JAN MEYERS]: But I would very much, I would very much like to see it. Right now, I have just never supported a reduction in student aid. We have now about, nationwide, about $6.2 billion in PELL Grants; about $158 million in the past we have put into Perkins Loans; Student Educational Opportunity Grants are about $583 million. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Time. [JAN MEYERS]: And the Work-Study

Program is about $616 million. There has been a- [ELLEN REID GOLD]: It's time. Sorry. [JAN MEYERS]: Two minutes is really not enough to talk about these loans. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Judy Hancock, same question. [JUDY HANCOCK]: What I'm talking about is the contract that you signed and Representative Kasich's background materials that go with the GOP contract. [JAN MEYERS]: But it is not part of the contract, Judy. It has nothing to do with the contract. [JUDY HANCOCK]: Oh, don't you- After 10 years in the Congress, Jan, don't you know about legislative history? Don't you know about background materials that accompany a document? Representative Kasich in his background materials that go with the GOP contract state that all campus-based student aid programs in America would be terminated, and half of the savings would go to PELL Grants and half would go to fund the capital gains tax cut for the rich. And right here in the 3rd District of Kansas, 3500 students -- and here's the document from the

Department of Education, I'll give it to you. That was faxed by the Department of Education to Representative David Obey, one of your colleagues in the House -- and 3500 students in the 3rd District, Congresswoman Meyers, would lose over $5 million in aid. And you'll see right there that the University of Kansas has about 2500 students who would lose about $3 million in aid if the contract that you signed with Newt Gingrich and all those party bosses back in Washington were to be implemented. That's why I think it's so important that you pay attention to the needs of the people back here at home, rather than signing a bunch of contracts with party bosses in the middle of an election. [APPLAUSE] [CHEERING] [APPLAUSE] [JAN MEYERS]: That is simply inaccurate. And the figures from the three programs are $3 million. If you cut it in

half and put half of it into PELL Grants, at a max, that's a million and a half dollars -- and I will give you all of my figures. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Let's see -- should we start again? [JAN MEYERS]: Your figures are simply erroneous, and- [JUDY HANCOCK]: I'm only relying upon your fellow member. [JAN MEYERS]: I'm trying to be very respectful of your time, but I am not going to let her get away with using erroneous figures when I have these right in front of me. Besides, that is not a proposal by John Kasich. It is a proposal by the Congressional Budget Office, and it has been made year after year after year by the Congressional Budget Office. And all of her facts are wrong. [APPLAUSE] [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Now according to my time, you have 30 seconds to respond. [JUDY HANCOCK]: I beg to differ with you. And your own member of the House, Representative Obey, has attached to his document

Representative Kasich's background materials and has consulted with the U.S. Department of Education, and they have confirmed that that would be the impact, both in the 3rd District of Kansas and across the nation. [JAN MEYERS]: I will certainly examine your papers, but remember David Obey is a very strong and partisan Democrat. [APPLAUSE] [ELLEN REID GOLD]: In hopes that we can continue this conversation along the same lines maybe with another question from the audience, I'm going to go to Ken Collier and see if he has been able to assemble another question on financing education by the federal government. [KEN COLLIER]: Well, a lot of audience members are interested in welfare reform, and perhaps -- I forgot whose turn it is to start here -- but you two would like to exchange some papers over how you would save money with welfare reform. [LAUGHTER] [JAN MEYERS]: Is it- am I first, or-? [ELLEN REID GOLD]: This goes to Judy Hancock. [JAN MEYERS]: Ok. [JUDY HANCOCK]: Thank you for the question. I approach the subject of welfare reform,

frankly, with a lot of humility, because I don't purport to have a grand plan that will drastically reform and improve the welfare system. But having said that, I'll tell you a few of my notions. I think the present system is cockeyed. I think it has incentives and disincentives that run counter to what we as a people hold dear. For example, there's presently an incentive in the welfare system that discourages family and marriage. If there's a man in the house, there's a discouragement to stay together -- to get married and stay together. I think that's cockeyed. I think there's an incentive in the present system not to save. For example, if you have assembled what they consider as too many assets -- whether it's to go to college or go to a technical school or whatnot -- you're penalized. A few years ago, there was a girl in Spanish Harlem who managed to save $4900 to go to college. When the welfare authorities found out about it, they penalized the mother. I say that's cockeyed, because it sends the message, "Don't work. Don't save. Don't try to improve your

own life." So I think we need to reform the incentives and disincentives in the system in accordance with the things that we hold dear -- family, marriage, work, responsibility, and savings. I favor "workfare," and I understand- and I heard my opponent here in Lawrence at a Kiwanis Club in the spring say that she opposed workfare as the president proposed it. I favor workfare, and I also believe that we must make sure that any proposal that we implement is not punitive on the children born into this unfortunate situation. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Thank you. Jan Meyers? [JAN MEYERS]: I did not say I don't favor workfare. I don't favor putting another $10 billion into the welfare system as the president has proposed and having a lot of new federal programs. What works in New Jersey may not work as well in Kansas. I have a bill in- well, as you know, the

AFDC population -- the Aid to Families with Dependent Children population -- is funded by three large entitlements: AFDC, which is a monthly cash grant; food stamps; and Medicaid. I would freeze one of those -- AFDC. Send it back to the states in block grants. Give the states maximum flexibility, and let them design work programs, daycare programs, and so forth that would help people get off welfare but with only two federal mandates. One, there would be no AFDC unless both parents are 18. I don't do anything to food stamps, Medicaid, housing -- but no AFDC unless both parents are 18, and no AFDC at any age until the father is absolutely identified with name, date and place of birth, or

Social Security Number, something so we know exactly who he is. Now, why do I say that? Because by the year 2000, 80% of minority children and 40% of all children in this country are going to be born out of wedlock. Forty percent of all children are going to be born out of wedlock. And this means -- statistically, we know -- that these children are going to live their lives in poverty. I think we have to change the incentive from saying, "If you will have two children- [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Time. [JAN MEYERS]: ...with no man in the house, we'll give you $18,000 a year-" [ELLEN REID GOLD]: I'm sorry, your time's up. [JAN MEYERS]: Thank you, I'm sorry. You can't talk about that in two minutes. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Steve Marino to Jan Meyers. [STEVE MARINO]: Representative Meyers, according to the National Science Foundation's publication Selected Data on Academic, Science, and Engineering Research and Development Expenditures, the University of Kansas received approximately $32 million from the federal

government for science and engineering research, which is the bulk of KU's academic research. That ranks KU 100 of all U.S. universities. By comparison of other state-supported Midwestern universities -- such as the University of Colorado, which receives approximately $130 million, which ranks 19th in the United States; Iowa State, which receives approximately $45 million, which ranks 77th in the United States; and the University of Wisconsin at Madison, which receives approximately $200 million, which ranks 8th in the United States -- KU appears to be receiving crumbs from the federal government as far as research. What are you going to do as a member of Congress to increase KU's portion of the pie as it relates to federal research dollars? [JAN MEYERS]: Well, I feel very strongly about federal research dollars going to the universities, and we do have programs to try to make sure that more money gets back to those schools that are not now receiving as much federal aid. I have had Lawrence in my

district for two years now, and I've probably written 15 to 20 letters in support of grant applications from the university and university- KU School of Medicine in Kansas City and will continue to do that. I think we need to work together to try to increase the number of grants that Midwestern schools get. A great many of them do go to schools on the coast. And I am very supportive and will continue to work hard to do that. Can I answer your question from the first one now? The Contract with America, just to get back to that for a minute, is a commitment to bring 10 issues to the floor for a vote. It is not to vote for them. It is to bring them to a floor for a vote. Now, I have said that about 90% of it

I support. I do not support the welfare portion of it at all. I think that goes to- the welfare reform portion goes too far, too fast, and it has the gag rule in it -- and I don't support it at all. But the other 90%, I am perfectly willing to support and certainly to bring to the floor for a vote. And as far as the middle- it being a tax cut for the rich -- it is not. A $500 per child tax credit is a middle income tax cut. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Time. [JAN MEYERS]: And don't forget that we still have the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is a reversible credit that goes to those under $20,000. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: And now Judy Hancock on education grants. [JUDY HANCOCK]: Thank you. I would work very hard in conjunction with the people here in Douglas County and throughout the district to promote those types of assistance to educational institutions in the 3rd District.

I'm close to KU, in that I have not only gone here for two years, but I've been pleased to serve on a number of boards and task forces here at the university -- most notably chairing the chancellor's Advisory Board in International Studies and Programs. Being a humanities major, I don't have a lot of natural affinity with those in the sciences and engineering fields here at KU, so I haven't served on any boards there or task forces. So I'm not as familiar with that faculty as I am with those in the liberal arts and sciences. But that, I don't believe, would stand in my way in fighting very aggressively for aid to those fields at the University of Kansas. I hope that's an appropriate answer. Going back a minute to the Wall Street Journal -- which, again, is not a liberal bastion -- which has the following to say about the Child Tax Credit: "The biggest tax break would be a $500 tax credit per child for all families making up

to $200,000 a year. It would not help low-income taxpayers. A couple with four kids making $190,000 would subtract $2,000 from their taxes, but a couple with four kids making $19,000 would get nothing. The point of any children's allowance ought to be to help families cope with financial burdens. It's surely an upside down social policy when it's not paid primarily to those with the greatest need. This initiative would cost $25 billion a year." [JAN MEYERS]: You didn't listen, Judy. There is the Earned Income- there is the Earned Income Tax Credit for those who are under $20,000 a year. For the middle income people who are bearing the burden of taxes in this country, we need to have a tax credit that is meaningful. And it seems to me that a meaningful tax credit goes to those who have children under 18- [JUDY HANCOCK]: Making up to $200,000 a year. That's middle class in this country? [APPLAUSE] Boy, I must not know my census data very well. [JAN MEYERS]: But, Judy, that

isn't who bears the burden. There aren't that many people who earn that kind of money in this country. What I'm talking about is those who earn $30,000 and $40,000 and $50,000 and $60,000 a year, and they have two, three, four children. And they don't feel rich, but they are bearing a tremendous burden and are not getting many tax breaks. And I believe that this $500 tax credit per child would help them enormously. If we can't do a $500 tax credit, then let's do a $300 tax credit. But for heaven's sakes, let's get some tax relief for people in middle income who are bearing the burden right now. And if you don't think they should have any tax relief, Judy, I don't think you're in touch with the 3rd District. [APPLAUSE] [JUDY HANCOCK]: I didn't say that, Congresswoman Meyers.

[APPLAUSE] You did not listen to me. I did not say that. But I did say that I don't think that families making up to $200,000 a year are in need of a Child Tax Credit. That tax credit should go to families with the greatest financial burden in raising their children, and I daresay families making $200,000 a year don't qualify for that. [APPLAUSE] [JAN MEYERS]: And I'm sure that if it has to be adjusted- [APPLAUSE] and I'm sure- I'd like to have not such long applause, please. [LAUGHTER] And I'm sure that if it has to be adjusted, it's going to be adjusted in terms of bringing down the top level of income. It will be adjusted in some way, because you can't promise all of these things and say that you want to balance the budget. We simply have to be realistic and adjust the items in the Contract with America so that we can also not make the deficit any worse. [JUDY HANCOCK]: And I have never heard a more complete expression by

you by why this contract is such gimmickry. You just admitted that you did not plan to do these things. And I must say this, that to say that you're going- You know, I'm a lawyer, and a deal is a deal. A contract is a contract. [JAN MEYERS]: We'll bring it to the floor for a vote, Judy. I've said it four times -- I can't say it any more. [JUDY HANCOCK]: That is political gimmickry. [JAN MEYERS]: I have not said I would vote for $500. I said i will bring it to the floor for a vote. Why does that frighten you so? [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Let me, if I may, resume- [JUDY HANCOCK]: And you're going to pass all that in 100 days, right? A hundred days that you're going to do all these things? [JAN MEYERS]: Yes. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: If I may, let me go back to the original format. [LAUGHTER] [APPLAUSE] I think we've heard some discussion from the candidates, which perhaps we need to hear, but I'd like the next question to go from Lee Ketzel to Judy Hancock. [LEE KETZEL]: U.S. trade policy -- should free and open world markets be the overriding goal of U.S. trade policy? And to what extent should we use trade to push for human rights, environmental protection, and other important global causes? [JUDY HANCOCK]: I

believe that the United States is in some very difficult economic times. When I graduated from Princeton, 1973, that was the year we peaked -- many economists say -- in terms of the average real hourly earnings in this country. And we all admit -- economists across the board -- that incomes have stagnated. And if we are going to improve our standard of living, we have to continue to expand into the global marketplace. I think that there is no more important issue for the U.S. economy than our trade policy. I support very aggressively a free trade policy for the United States. We cannot close our borders, nor can we close our minds, to the opportunities that exist outside our borders -- which is why, for example, that I so strongly supported NAFTA, and my opponent for six months leaned, dawdled, dodged, ducked, and basically said that she was leaning against voting for NAFTA and finally on the last day of the vote decided to vote for it.

Well, I went to the AFL-CIO convention a year ago and told them despite my need for labor support in this election -- my desire to reach out to working people -- that I supported NAFTA. I believe that we need to send to Washington people who have the guts to deal with the tough issues, and that means taking positions that are in the long-term economic interest of the United States irrespective of momentary political discomfort. And NAFTA was one of those positions. And I think every politician in the United States Congress should be judged by where they stood on that vote and whether or not they attempted to communicate with the voters how vitally important NAFTA was for the long-term economic interests of this country. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Thank you. Jan Meyers? [JAN MEYERS]: I think trade is probably the most important issue of the 90s. If we are going to increase our economy, if we're going to grow our economy, we have to trade

actively with the rest of the world. I had a real struggle with the NAFTA vote, and that's because I am not a knee-jerk kind of a person. I think about what I do. And I know that there were some real concerns about a free trade agreement -- which means literally just an open trade agreement, almost as open as between Kansas and Missouri -- you know, going back and forth across the border. And I was concerned about that, because we've never had a free trade agreement with a country that we had a 2,000 mile common border with that was so different from us. I voted immediately for the Canadian free trade agreement. I like Mexico and Mexicans very much. But the wages are so much lower, and the environmental enforcement is so much different that I was

just deeply concerned about that trade agreement. I struggled with it until about three days before the vote and then finally decided that not only was my district strongly supportive, but I didn't know what would happen if we turned it down. Their elections were in August; ours were in November. I knew we wouldn't even get back to the table with them for at least a year. By that time they could have established some free trade relationships with the European Union, and so I finally decided that all things considered, I would vote "Yes." But it was not an easy vote, and anyone who thinks it was an easy vote- [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Time. [JAN MEYERS]: ...is a knee-jerk kind of a person. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: And Scott Holeman, next question to Jan Meyers, please. [SCOTT HOLEMAN]: Congresswoman Meyers, this is a two-part question. Many

Americans want campaign reform and/or term limits. What measures can be implemented to bring a more level playing field in Congressional campaigns? And since some people in Congress complain they're always campaigning because of two-year terms, do you support the current two-year terms, or would you like to see those terms expanded? [JAN MEYERS]: Do we get six minutes for those questions? Ok. I support term limits. There are some upsides and some downsides to term limits. I recognize them all. I could recite them all for you, but I won't. I'll just say that I've looked at it, and on balance I'm going to support term limits when it's in front of me. Campaign finance reform -- my opponent has been scolding me for voting against a campaign reform bill that was in front of me, so I guess that must mean that she supports it. But, you know, right now PACs can give $10,000 in the primary and $10,000 in the general election- I mean $5,000 in a primary, $5,000 in a

general for a total of $10,000 in an election cycle. This bill would have done nothing to change that. And furthermore, it had public financing, but everybody knows that the checkoff system is declining dramatically even for the presidents. And so the supporters of that bill were talking about a new tax source to support 1,000 Congressional races. I mean there's 435 of us in the House and all of our opponents. Thirty Senators, approximately, run each time and all of their opponents. And so it's going to be somewhere around 1,000 races. And I don't think the American people want to have a new tax to support Congressional races. If my, if my opponent would have voted for that bill that changed nothing about PACs, no change in PACs, and would have voted for a new tax

source to fund supporting 1,000 Congressional races, again I say, she is out of touch with the 3rd District. My bill which- [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Time. [JAN MEYERS]: ...I lost, would have allowed $1,000 in the primary- [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Time. [JAN MEYERS]: ...$1,000 in the general, and at least half of their contributions from the district. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Judy Hancock. [JUDY HANCOCK]: Thank you. Do I get a little extra time there? [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Yes. [JUDY HANCOCK]: Ok, thank you. We have just seen an example of what's wrong with Congress, if i may say with all due respect. Let's just parse what she just said. First of all, she said she was for term limits. Well that Contract on America calls for six-year terms -- six years, maximum -- for House members. She's running for 11th and 12th years in United States Congress. I don't support term limits, and I'll tell you why. I think that they would enhance the power of staffers and bureaucrats and lobbyists. And secondly, I think that the larger states, because they have larger

delegations under the rules of the Constitution pertaining to the House of Representatives, would have more power, because they would simply have more members in their Congressional delegations. And if you turn over the whole Congress on a set schedule, I think the larger delegations would have more power. But I do support genuine campaign finance reform, and I do support limiting the number of years that any member of the House can be a powerful committee chairman, because that's where the real power's lodged in the Congress. But let's get back to campaign finance reform. I've noticed that career politicians always say they're for campaign finance reform, but then when it comes to voting on a bill, they just never find one perfect enough. They've just got to wait 'til it's absolutely perfect before they vote for it. Now, I do not support tax funds for Congressionally- for U.S. federally funded Congressional campaigns. I do not support that even though she suggests that. What I think is happening is the reason that the checkoff system for the presidential elections is

producing fewer dollars -- tax dollars -- for these sorts of races is because the people are so cynical about politics. And I think we see here tonight, perhaps, why it is when we have double talk, back and forth, about campaign finance reform -- why that may be the case that there's so much cynicism out there. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Even your extended time is up. [LAUGHTER] [JUDY HANCOCK]: Ok. Thank you, thank you. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: And the next question -- Ken Collier to Judy Hancock. [KEN COLLIER]: Yes, a number of people in the audience are interested in knowing- were interested in your answers on NAFTA, but they also want to know about GATT. What is your position on trade agreements in the future? [JUDY HANCOCK]: Ok. I have not yet read the full GATT agreement. I did read NAFTA. I didn't read all the tariff schedules that were attached to NAFTA, but I did read the basic body of the NAFTA agreement. I have not yet read all of the GATT agreement, and I will do so before I'm called to vote on it if I do succeed in being hired by the people of the 3rd District. But

based on what I have read about the GATT agreement, I am generally in support of it. The one reservation I have pertains to national sovereignty, and I intend to examine those provisions of the GATT agreement more closely to find out in my own mind, relying upon my own skills as an international lawyer, whether or not I think those provisions of the agreement impinge unduly upon the national sovereignty of the United States. But generally I believe that the GATT agreement will be in the long-term economic interests of the United States, because it lowers foreign tariff and non-tariff barriers to the flow of goods and services and technology across national borders. And being that we are the world's largest exporter, we stand to benefit enormously -- more than any other nation on the face of the earth -- by the implementation of the GATT agreement. I also think that we should continue to pursue bilateral trade agreements with both developed and developing countries around the world in order to open more markets to

U.S goods and services. Finally, since Japan is an area of expertise in my own practice, I would suggest to you that we need to pursue much more targeted, sector-specific negotiations with the Japanese, and I applaud what Charlene Barshefsky, the deputy U.S. trade ambassador, is doing currently in the negotiations with the Japanese. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Thank you. Jan Meyers? [JAN MEYERS]: I am currently studying GATT. It took about eight years to write, and the administration then had it for about nine months when they were beginning to draft the implementing legislation. And then they gave it to Congress about nine days before we went out of session, and we were supposed to understand that in nine days. So I have brought it home, and I am studying GATT. I have always supported GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade. I think if you have 123 nations in the world that are trying to trade with each other, that you need some rules of the game so that what is an unfair trade practice is defined, and so that there are some rules, and so that trade flows easily. I think the concern here -- this is very much like GATT has been in the past -- however, my concern here is the World Trade Organization, where disputes are resolved by means of one vote for country, per country. And I think a great many people have a concern looking at what has happened in the U.N., where a number of the nations have voted against the U.S., sometimes just because we're here, I think. I think there is a

concern there that maybe there will be some actions taken against the U.S. by groups of third world countries or whatever that will hurt our ability to trade. Actually, I think most of the agreements in GATT have always been reached by consensus. And I think under the World Trade Organization they would continue to be reached by consensus, but I want to make very sure how that's going to work. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Time. Judy Hancock. [KEN COLLIER]: She responded first. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Excuse me. Steve Marino to Judy Hancock. I'm sorry -- David. [DAVID STEVENS]: That's all right. Given the precedent of the National Voter Registration Act of 1994, which mandated motor voter and agency based voter registration -- which, by the way, hasn't been enacted in Kansas, yet -- would you support federal legislation which would establish a drop-off site for

absentee ballots on every college campus; mandated placement of a polling location on every college campus with more than 250 students; allow any student registered in the county to vote at the campus polling location regardless of whether they are registered the vote in that precinct? And I would remind you that whether you know this or not, Representative Gutiérrez of Illinois has introduced similar legislation to be acted on during the next legislative session. [JAN MEYERS]: Well, I did vote for motor voter, as I think you probably know, and I have always been very encouraging of trying to encourage as many people to vote as I possibly can. I do know that one of the concerns about motor voter was that it was an unfunded mandate on the state and that we had told the states to do something that was going to cost them additional money, and we had not paid for it. I would like to work closely with the states in what you are suggesting,

because to me the idea of encouraging people to vote just as much as possible -- I recognize that on campuses people are away from home, and it is sometimes difficult to get that absentee ballot or to get back home and vote -- I would like to do whatever I can to encourage young people to vote who are on college campuses. However, I would like to work with the officials at the state level on this to see, you know, what we can work out together on it rather than just placing another unfunded mandate on them. [JUDY HANCOCK]: We agree. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Thank you. Ok, let's stop again at Ken Collier and see what the audience is interested in hearing. [KEN COLLIER]: Well, a lot of members of the audience are concerned about some of our social problems -- teen pregnancy, drugs, inner city crime. And beyond solutions like welfare reform and discussions of issues like family values, what kind of

ideas do you have for easing these problems? [JUDY HANCOCK]: Well as I mentioned, I think that we need to emphasize incentives within the welfare system presently. The present program, it seems to me, encourages people to do things we really don't want them to do, and it discourages them from doing things we wish them to do, as I mentioned in my earlier statement. I think secondly we need to recognize that the welfare population is much more complex than some recognize. Do you know that both in Kansas and nationally most people on welfare have fewer than the national average of children, and they're on welfare for less than two years? There is a hardcore group that's estimated to be about 25% that's on welfare for a very long time and, indeed, may be caught up in a generational cycle of poverty and welfare dependency. But I think when we talk about welfare recipients, we need to be cognizant of the fact that they

can spread across the spectrum and they include a lot of people who are on welfare for a relatively short period of time who need momentary assistance in their life. Lest we forget, Gerald Ford's own mother was on welfare at one time. So I think that we need programs that are targeted -- job training and counseling and transitional assistance -- to individuals, particularly in that group that we think is really the hardcore poor. I also think that we need to recognize that about 25% of the people on welfare in Kansas are on welfare to get healthcare. And we need to find a way to provide, at least for some period of time, healthcare assistance to those people who get off welfare and get a job in the private sector, so that when they do encounter a healthcare crisis and they're uninsured in the private sector in a low wage paying job that doesn't carry insurance, that they won't go back into the welfare system in order to get healthcare. And, finally- [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Time. Jan Meyers? [JAN MEYERS]: Thank you.

I have always been supportive of treatment- of drug treatment, and just most recently in the Crime Bill some of the prevention money that was referred to as "pork" -- and I do think about 10% of that big $30 billion, six-year authorization was probably pork, about $3 billion of it -- but there were some of those prevention programs that were very good. And one of them -- it was Violence Against Women/Violence Against the Elderly, and drug treatment -- and I think they were very solid programs. And of course, I think as all of you are aware, I did vote for the Crime Bill. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we have worked internationally with a number of countries in Central and South America to resolve the drug problems through working with those countries' governments through

eradication; interdiction, preventing the drugs from coming into this country; treatment; and prevention. And I think we have to continue to attack the drug problem on all fronts. I might mention the drug problem is responsible, of course, for a great deal of our crime problem, which I think was involved in your question too. And I might say that although the number of people on welfare, referring to what my opponent just said, is accurate, but I use an analogy of a hospital bed. If you have 12 beds in the hospital where people stay all year, and then the 13th bed turns over every week, every week -- at the end of the year you can say, "You know, gosh- [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Time. [JAN MEYERS]: "...five times as many people get off of welfare very quickly, get out of here very quickly-" [ELLEN REID GOLD]: I'm sorry, it's time. [JAN MEYERS]: Two

minutes is very difficult to talk about drugs and welfare and crime. I'm sorry, I hate to complain. I'll finish my story later. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Ok. We can bring this in on time if we ask for closing comments now. Do you have one really urgent question that you want to ask before we leave? [DAVID STEVENS]: Please explain -- this is to Congresswoman Meyers, and you can respond to this as to how you might vote- [JUDY HANCOCK]: Ok. [DAVID STEVENS]: For the young people in the room, why you voted against the National Service Bill? And in addition to that, so that you can answer as well, what other ideas do you have for encouraging young people to get more involved in the communities within America? [JAN MEYERS]: Well, I think the National Service Bill is a wonderful program if you had all of the money in the world. It cost $1.5 billion, and Bob Dole and Nancy Kassebaum and Pat Roberts and I all voted against the bill, because

that program gives about $15,000 or $16,000 a year to one student, whereas the usual Pell Grant is about $2,000 or $3,000. We thought we could serve a great deal more- many more students by taking that $1.5 billion and putting it into the Pell Grant program. Also, the National Service Act is not need based. Nonprofits make grant applications, and then they can give their National Service award to anyone they want to, really. And so it ends up not being need based, so you're spending a great deal of money on very few people, and it is not need based. Now, I think it's a wonderful program -- nothing against the program or the kids -- it's just that we thought the money should be fed through

into the Pell Grant program. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Thank you. Judy Hancock? [JUDY HANCOCK]: The reason that I support the National Service Act and would have voted for it is because it was not intended to replace all other forms of student aid. Instead, this was a program that enabled people who wish to go to college to do so in return for two years of public service. And when you look around Douglas County and throughout the 3rd District of Kansas, can't you see all kinds of needs in the community for college-bound students to assist as teachers' aides and nurses helping at hospitals and all kinds of other community settings? And this was not a federal giveaway program. You know, we invest in the foreign Peace Corps. I say, what's wrong with a domestic Peace Corps? This was not intended to be a replacement for financial aid alone. It was to be a program to enable idealistic young Americans who want to go to college, who were willing to give two years of their life up in

return for public service. And I think it's that kind of idealism that we need to recapture in this country. And perhaps if we had more such programs, there wouldn't be the cynicism that there is in this country. So that's why I would have voted for the act. [APPLAUSE] [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Thank you both for your brief answers -- this will enable us to move promptly into the conclusion. Each of the candidates is allowed to make a one minute concluding remark, starting with Judy Hancock. [JUDY HANCOCK]: First of all, I wish to thank all of you so much for coming out tonight. This is a good example of public spiritedness, and I'm glad that you're here. And I always look forward to coming to Douglas County, because the discussions are always robust and spirited. [LAUGHTER] And they were certainly that tonight. In all seriousness, this country faces some very serious times. There is a deep mood of cynicism out there, best summarized for me by the Miami County farmer on the fairgrounds who said to me when I asked for his

vote, "Honey, if you ain't a crook now, you will be by the time you get there." I think that we have to recapture a sense of legitimacy in this government. I think we need someone who goes to Washington with new energy and new ideas and independence of mind, a results orientation -- who understands that being a member of Congress is a job and not a royal position nor a lifetime appointment. I want to go to work for you. I will work hard. I ask for your support. Thank you. [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Thank you. [APPLAUSE] Congresswoman Jan Meyers. [JAN MEYERS]: I think you can tell a lot about what kind of a public servant a person has been by who endorses them. And I have been endorsed in this race by the Chamber of Commerce; by the National Federation of Independent Business -- NFIB -- and by the Small

Business Council of America. Environmentally, I've been endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters, which is a large group, a coalition of environmental groups; and by the Sierra Club, separately. I've been endorsed by the National Nurses Association; the National Association of Police Organizations; the Veterans for Foreign Wars; the Vietnam Veterans; the National Women's Political Caucus; and the Kansas Farm Bureau. I am not part of that deep mood of cynicism that my opponent keeps talking about. I voted "No" on all pay raises, and if one happened in spite of my vote, I gave it back until after the next election. I don't spend all my office money and all my franking money, and I've returned over $1 million to the Treasury in unspent- [ELLEN REID GOLD]: Time.

[JAN MEYERS]: ...office and franking funds. I ask for your vote. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] [MARY WHITEHEAD]: You just heard a public forum with candidates in Kansas's 3rd Congressional District race, which was held on the University of Kansas campus October 20. We now move to the state's 2nd Congressional District. Democrat John Carlin and Republican Sam Brownback faced off at the studios of public TV station KCPT in Kansas City on October 13. The panelists are Kansas Public Radio's Nick Haines, Carol Whittaker of KCPT, and Steve Kraske of the Kansas City Star. The moderator is KCPT's Deborah Holmes, who explained the ground rules for the forum. [SILENCE] [SILENCE]