- Good evening and welcome to the KTWU studios on the campus of Washburn University.

I'm Val VanDerSuis, general Manager for KTWU.

- And I'm Bill Fiander, lecturer of Political science for Washburn University.

- KTWU and the Washburn University Political Science Department are proud to bring this evening's debate forum to you.

It's our mission at KTWU to be a resource for education, knowledge and insight and provide you with the resources you need to exercise your rights as an informed voter.

- The Washburn University Political Science Department has a long tradition of providing real world experience in the study of governments, public policies and political behavior using both humanistic and scientific perspectives and skills to examine the countries and regions of the world.

We take great pride in providing a neutral ground for open discussion on politics and policies and conducting public issues forum like this one.

- Now, please stay tuned as we bring you the candidates running for the 2nd Congressional District of Kansas.

- Hello, I'm Bob Beatty.

The Kansas Second District is spread out north to south in eastern Kansas and really does look like a jigsaw puzzle piece with the bottom, including Coffeeville and Pittsburg, the middle Emporia and Topeka.

Then a teeny sliver connecting south to north that is so small that if you're, if you're in Eudora, you might be able to squint to your east and see the third district and then turn to the west and see the first district.

The section used to be larger, but Lawrence was taken from the second district after the 2020 census.

Then at the top you have a bit of Kansas City and Leavenworth, Atchison and Sabetha .

The current representative is Republican Jake La Turner, but in April he announced he wasn't running for reelection.

So joining us for the next hour are the three candidates who hope to replace him.

They are Nancy Boyda from the Democratic Party, John Hauer from the Libertarian Party, and Derek Schmidt from the Republican Party.

This form is a partnership with the political science department at Washburn University and KTWU.

I'll be asking some questions and the candidates will also be taking questions from our audience members and from you on Facebook.

Now candidates by the rules of this forum, you've each been given 90 seconds for your opening statement and we start with John Hauer.

- Thank you.

First of all, it's nice not to be the youngest one at one of these things for once, so I might even dust off some jokes about the baby boomers Look out.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please stop.

Stop giving up your choices.

Stop giving up your power.

Stop giving away your rights.

Stop giving away your freedom.

Every time you ask the government for help, every time you ask the government to regulate something, every time you ask the government to tackle a problem for you, you're giving away your power.

Every time the government does anything, it comes with strings attached.

It comes with a loss of personal control and accountability and it comes at the expense of us, the taxpayers.

Nothing the government does is truly free and in fact usually comes with not only a loss of free market choice, but with the state's power monopoly on violence behind it.

So next time you're asked to vote on a tax increase, please say no.

Next time you're asked about increasing a budget, please say no.

Next time there's an issue, handle it yourselves instead of asking the government to step in because we are still the freest country in the world and by far the best place to live.

And rather than win any election or get your vote, I'd much rather continue to live in a free country for your sake, for mine, and for the sake of generations to come.

- Alright, thank you.

Nancy Boyda.

- Everyone Senses how important this election is.

Solutions are in the center, not the extremes.

In Congress, I was known as an independent moderate voice who had the courage to break with their party.

18 years ago, I voted against my party more than a dozen times on immigration.

I firmly believed that we had to secure our borders first.

That took courage.

Then just three months ago, I came this close to losing the primary because I took a stand on an extremely controversial and volatile issue and that took courage.

Derek has never shown that kind of courage when we needed him.

He didn't stand up to Brownback in his take crazy tax experiment.

It was his irresponsible legal opinion that gave Brownback the legal cover he needed to decimate our Kansas economy.

He didn't stand up to Trump and his effort to overturn the election.

Derek caved, even though he knew it was the wrong thing to do, he caved.

Thankfully the sham lawsuit was thrown out by the Supreme Court.

Derek opposed Medicaid expansion.

Even though our hospitals pleaded with him, he used our taxpayer money six times to try to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but he failed and six times the Supreme Court upheld it.

I'm here to make it clear where I've always stood.

I'm a moderate independent voice who believes that solutions are in the center and that we can only solve our big coun, our country's big problems with courage and independence.

Not from the extremes but from the center.

- Alright, Derek Schmidt, - Thank you for joining us tonight and being part of this ongoing great experiment in constitutional self-government.

Nearly two and a half centuries America's been in the midst of this experiment and tonight we're part of it.

We have a lot of challenges in this country, big tough problems and we need serious people who are willing to go to Congress, fight for the values of Eastern Kansas and work with other people from around the country who similarly are there to try to come to agreement and make this country better, leave it better than we found it.

In order to do that, and that's why I'm running, you have to listen to people in the second congressional district and I've been dedicated to that in the six months since I entered this campaign.

I've traveled to every corner of this district.

I visited each of the 27 counties, not once, but at least twice, and some of the counties like Shawnee where we are tonight, many, many more times to listen with people and understand what their hopes, concerns, fears, and dreams are.

There's a lot of diversity in this district, different ideas and philosophies, but there are three things that have become very clear.

'cause I hear them everywhere I go.

Kansans are stressed and worried about inflation, the cost of living and bad public policy decisions in Washington that keep overspending and driving up the cost for Kansas families trying to make ends meet.

They're worried very much about illegal immigration, the failure to secure our southern border and what that means here in our communities in terms of the inflow of drugs and fentanyl and other difficult challenges.

And they're worried about this nanny state mentality.

The intrusion of big government into our lives where folks we've never met in Washington are trying to tell Kansans what kind of cook stove to use to make our supper, what kind of car to drive to get around, how to run our farm ground and control it.

I'm running for Congress because I wanna be your voice in trying to make a difference on the issues like these.

- Alright, thank you very much.

Let's get right to our forum.

And the first question is an issue that shows up in most polls as being on people's minds.

It's the border issue.

So Congress turned down a bipartisan plan on the border that included $400 million to hire 1300 border agents, $755 million to hire 1600 asylum officers and staff, $239 million for border patrol officers to stop fentanyl.

Nearly a billion dollars for drug detection, also $4.7 billion for a fund to counter migrant surges.

Maybe it's just me, that sounds like a pretty good deal, but it didn't get passed.

Would you vote for that plan if it comes up again and why or why not start with Nancy Boyda?

- Well, I'll tell you what, as I said in my opening 18 years ago, I really stood against my own party.

I even was just, we just founded my testimony in November of 2007 to the judiciary committee for my own party who was in charge and begged him, said We have to do some things to get control of the border.

And I said, if we don't, we're going to lose the ability to come together and and fix this.

And today where are we?

We're exactly where we are.

So we've had a bipartisan bill for 20 years starting back in 2006, but it never gets passed because the Democrats believe that it's gonna sound like it's an anti-immigrant and the Republicans are afraid that it's gonna be an amnesty bill.

So we really have to come together.

I believe that one of my priorities, and I have said over and over that I hope that I can work with Jerry Moran arm in arm, go around the district, go around the state and say, let's get this bipartisan bill, let's get it done and let's get it fixed and let's get it so that we have some control at the border.

Derek and I would agree with, we need more control at the border.

We absolutely have to get to deport the drugs and the chemicals that are here.

That's our priority.

We differ when it comes to the issue of deportation and I do not believe with Donald Trump and Derek Schmidt that we should be deporting.

It will absolutely cause bedlam and chaos for our country.

- Thank you John Hauer.

- Well, I definitely don't believe in open borders like some libertarians do.

I believe in securing our borders as far as this bill in particular is concerned, I would definitely have to take a look at it and know the specifics because that sounds like an awful lot of money and I am definitely not for huge budgets.

I'd have to say, I'd have to get with a lot of people that are smarter than me on this one and get their opinion on it and have them look it over, look it over with them and make my decision from there.

- Derek Schmidt?

Well I think one of the most important issues facing our country is securing the southern border and getting a handle on our broken immigration system.

What I don't believe is that if we keep doing what we've done for the last 18 or 20 years, we're going to get a different result.

And here we are all these years later with the border still wide open and it's still a political football being kicked back and forth.

Look, you talked about a bill here, Bob, that was thrown up in the middle of an election year and and there's a lot of talk about it being bipartisan.

I don't think whether it's bipartisan or not bipartisan is the test.

The test is whether it would be effective, whether it actually helps us get control of the southern border.

There was a bill came out of the House of Representatives more than a year ago.

It as HR two HR two indicates it's one of the priorities for the current leadership passed out.

It's been sitting in the Senate with no action for well over a year.

I'd like to see that bill taken up and passed.

But of course that's not what the Democrat leadership in the Senate wants to do.

The single most important thing we can do.

Sure it'd be great to pass a tough immigration bill and I would've supported HR two, which was the house, PA house passed bill.

But the single most important thing we can do to get control of our southern border is to elect a president who is dedicated to getting control of our southern border.

If you look at what's happened in the last three and a half years in terms of illegal immigration over our southern border, it's not just more of the same, just a little more.

If you look at where things were in terms of under the Trump administration, the Obama administration, the Bush administration, things were largely controlled and we had a debate about means in the Biden Harris years, it has been overwhelmingly out of control.

There have been three times as many illegal aliens come over our border in the last three and a half years as there are people in Kansas.

So Nancy and I disagree.

I think the most important thing we can do is to reject the Harris Biden approach and to elect Donald Trump - President.

Okay, I've got a follow up and that means just a a minute answer rather than a minute 30 specifically, do you support the Dream Act which provides protections and a path to citizenship for children who had brought to America illegally but then grew up here, many of them who went to school and spent a number of years here.

And we start again A minute we start with John Hauer.

- That sounds like a really good idea actually.

I'm definitely not for treating people badly.

Definitely for individual rights, no matter what country they come from.

I would like to see the price tag on this bill though, because once again, that's one of the main things that we have to tackle is the runaway spending.

So I definitely agree for a path to citizenship, but I'd have to see the price tag on this bill to know whether I'd support it or not.

- Alright, Derek Schmidt.

Well, I think first things first Bob.

I mean first we secure the border, then we deal with this influx of people who have come in the last three and one half years, three times the population of the state of Kansas.

Maybe more then we can have a discussion about what we want the immigration system to look like in terms of putting America First America's needs, who we want to to have here and and who we want to exclude from the country.

I certainly agree that children who came here through no fault of their own are the most sympathetic of all the populations who we have.

And I think that gives 'em a leg up in that debate.

But I do not as a general matter, support a pathway to citizenship.

I don't think we should reward people who broke the law to come here at the expense of people who did it the right way, stood in line, waited their turn.

I've been to many naturalization ceremonies and they will bring a tear of joy to your eye.

People who have worked hard and followed the rules to become American citizens.

We shouldn't cheapen that by rewarding folks that just broke the law.

- Nancy Boyda.

- So this is what I'm talking about when I said I broke with my party so often, I kept on saying that until we have control at the border, which clearly we still have not established, that we can get that done and whoever is the next president, I'm gonna do everything I can to work with them to say we need to get control at the border.

So when I broke with my party each time, that was to say no, we're not going to extend more rights until we have control at the border.

So when you talk about the Dream Act, I mean who wouldn't want to have these kids be part of this country and they should be.

But as I did 18 years ago, I took a very courageous stand and said, we will do that when we have control of the border.

And now I add when we have deported the drug criminals and then we can talk about this.

It was not popular then.

It may not be popular with my party today.

- Alright, obviously a member of the US Congress has quite a bit to do with foreign policy, not as much as the US Senate, but still is.

It's part of the job.

So let's move over to a foreign policy question.

I read a fascinating comment by Mike Pompeo, who of course is a Kansan former Secretary of State.

He said he told the president of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky, that if he wanted continued aid from the US for Ukraine's war against Russia, when he was talk, going to talk to Donald Trump, he said, "Don't appeal to American values".

Pompeo said quote, "It has to be good old fashioned greed" unquote.

So do you agree with Mr. Pompeo that America's interest in helping Ukraine lie more on money than values?

And we start with Derek Schmidt?

- Well, I've never heard that quote before and I don't know what Mike had to say, but I do know that America has great interests in terms of having a strong standing in the world in terms of having a strong position that deters aggression around the world.

We have had that at times in the past and I fear we do not have that right now.

If you look for example at what Vladimir Putin has done in Ukraine, he's invaded not once but twice.

He took Crimea on Barack Obama's watch, Nancy's former boss, and he took Eastern Ukraine on Joe Biden's watch after the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan that sent a signal of American weakness around the world to all of our foes as well as our friends alike.

He did not make an incursion into Ukraine when you had President Trump in the White House and you had what I would argue was strong American leadership that included Secretary of State Pompeo at the time.

So I think it is really critical as you analyze this factor or that factor.

You asked about Mike's question.

I think it's really critical that we focus on American strength and projecting that America is engaged in the world and is strong because it makes a difference in deterring misconduct.

Nancy Boyda?

- Yeah, I think Pompeo's quote was a little cynical and I, I wouldn't, I hope not to agree with it.

Here's what I can tell you that I believe that Kansans are so, it's so important to Kansans.

I want the safety and security of my family.

That's what I am, that's my first priority, is the safety and security of my own family and of course of my family.

Secure then that means that yours is is well.

So I believe that any weakness that we show to Vladimir Putin and I am deeply concerned with how much footsie is being played under the under the table with with Vladimir Putin.

He is our enemy people, he is not our friend and any, any, any sign of weakness that we show is going to be taken and never ever come back.

So yes, there's been Georgia, there's been Belarus, there's been, so this has been, Russia has been rebuilding its empire since 1991.

Let's get real.

That's what Vladimir Putin is going to do.

And what we must have is a united front always and it breaks my heart and worries me to death as a parent and grandparent to hear us talking about our allies as deadbeats.

We may have a conversation with them about money, but how dare we call our allies?

The NATO has kept the post World War II security for my family for 80 years.

How dare we call in front of the world we deadbeats and and show a divided America.

We have to stay strong and we have to stay united and keeping my family safe, I'm begging you to help me keep my family safe and yours as well.

Thank you.

- Alright, John Hauer.

So what I'm getting from that question is that basically they're wanting to sell a to Ukraine as like a benefit for us rather than a benefit for Ukraine.

That's what I'm getting from the question.

I think either way we should not be sending money.

We got a lot to worry about here.

Our budget is crazy, inflation is going crazy.

I mean just day-to-day living is getting rough for us here.

And the more money we send to other countries, the less we can do here and the more inflation goes up and the more spending goes up and it's just a cycle that continues.

So I think we should stop sending money to Ukraine and just call it quits with that.

- Alright, we're moving now to the abortion issue, which is a, is an issue that we see in state legislative races all the way up to Congress and the presidency.

So please tell the, the voters your personal views on abortion and whether in congress you would vote to ban it if that opportunity came about.

And also how do your views fit with the second district where nearly 60% voted no to giving the Kansas legislature the power to ban abortion in the 2022 abortion vote in Kansas.

Nancy Boyda.

- Well, sitting here as the only woman on this in this panel, I certainly have a vested interest in making sure that women, not men, it's women who need to be making their own personal private important decisions.

And yes, the second district voted overwhelmingly to say that women should be making those decisions, but Derek Schmidt has turned around and said he, he didn't even hear when we voted no.

And he's kept on pushing and pushing and pushing with Kansans for life the last two years they have introduced bills that, that, that ban abortion.

And as a woman, when we say no means no, that that's a very important thing for a woman.

So I would, yes, I would vote.

I was asked yesterday, well what about a, a nationwide right to have an abortion?

And I'm going, I want the best for the Kansas women.

Well of course I don't, I want the best for women in Georgia and women in Alabama and women in Texas and Louisiana.

I'm not about to sit by and and make sure that Kansans get taken care of and leave the rest of the women in this country to figure out the worst of the things that are happening to them.

So yes, of course I would vote for to reinstate Roe.

I would absolutely be thrilled to go to Washington DC and to cast that vote.

- John Hower.

- Well, personally, I am pro-life.

I believe that this is an issue that nobody's mind has ever been changed by arguing about just a moral issue like this.

As I see it is something that only life can change your mind.

But I am pro-life.

I'm Catholic, I'm pro-life.

I believe that our personhood begins at conception and continues till we die.

And I would definitely support anything in that direction.

I would like to say that maybe a better way to think about tackling this problem more positive way to look at it is basically instead of saying ban abortion or legalize abortion, just discussing when a person becomes a person, I think that'd be a little bit more constructive, a little bit more scientific, a lot less divisive as this issue can very well be.

- All right.

Thank you Derek Schmidt.

- Well, I am pro-life.

I've said that many times in the course of my public service career.

And I believe that we are better when we have less abortion, not more.

I also believe that as a matter of public policy, this has been decided that with the current state of the law, this is now a matter to be decided state by state.

And that's certainly the view, for example, of President Trump.

So it's clear there's not going to be a federal abortion ban proposed or seriously considered and certainly not signed into law by the president regardless of who wins the presidential election.

Nor do I advocate such a thing.

I think we need to leave it to the states and respect the state decisions.

And although I would've favored a different outcome on the Kansas vote, I said after it was cast, we have to respect that vote.

And I believe that's true.

I think Kansas needs to chart its path forward on this.

- So we had a presidential debate, one between Kamala Harris and, and Donald Trump.

I love debates.

Wish there was more, but there, there hasn't been maybe in four years.

But you know, in in the debate, both candidates maybe didn't answer the questions that that's their choice and in the choice of any candidate.

But there was one question that that surprised me that a candidate did not ask.

And one of the, one of the candidate, and as soon as they didn't, I said, I think we're gonna have to ask this at the second district forum.

And one of the candidates didn't answer when asked who won the 2020 presidential election.

I guess I thought people knew that.

So I'm gonna ask all three candidates here, in their opinion, who won the 2020 presidential election.

We start with John Hauer.

- Well I really wish it'd been Jo Jorgensen.

I met her personally and she's a, she was amazing.

Like she's the kind of lady who would wake up or her plane landed in Wichita for our convention.

She did a run and then like got onto business like she was the real deal.

But I mean the votes were cast and as far as I know Joe Biden won.

- Alright, thank you Derek Schmidt.

Well of course Joe Biden won the election, but lemme tell you who lost the Kansas families who were paying 20, 25, 30% more for their food, their gasoline and everything they have to pay for because of the poor policies that followed that Biden election.

The families who are worried about fentanyl pouring over our borders and are worried about the violence that we have seen right here in our Kansas communities because of the open southern border that are are a result of that 2020 election outcome.

The families who of course, loft loved ones in the disastrous pullout from Afghanistan and the families who have had to deal with overregulation on everything they deal with in their lives here in Kansas.

I hope we can reverse that outcome in this election and elect - Donald Trump.

Nancy Boyda.

- Well I would like to say first of all that I've been hearing some just alarming stories that make it sound like right now we're getting ready to position that if Donald Trump does not win again, that we will go into potential chaos.

And I'm begging each one of you who's listening get prepared for it.

Now, this is our democracy, the, the, the free and fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power if we lose that.

So of course Joe Biden won the 2020 election, but that did not stop Derek Schmidt from filing a lawsuit using our taxpayer money to try to overturn it.

Now thankfully the Supreme Court threw it out almost immediately because it had no basis.

But we need to understand that whatever Derek Schmidt just said was a bunch of word salad.

But for crying out loud, I am begging each one of you to look into your soul right now and say, what are you going to do on November 6th?

Is Donald Trump going to claim victory before the votes are even counted?

I'm sending up the alarm bells that are saying it absolutely looks like it.

This is the very fundamental core of our democracy.

Derek Schmidt has already shown us that he cannot be trusted and there is no reason to believe that he'll be any different this time.

- All right, thank you.

And now we're gonna maybe a different spin on the, the drug problem, maybe not.

But over my very, very short lifetime, you, you'd be, you'd be surprised that I've seen crises involving crack cocaine, cocaine, heroin, opioids, and now it's fentanyl.

So the Department of Homeland Security reports that the vast majority of fentanyl is smuggled into the United States via legal routes by wait for it US citizens.

So Americans are bringing in drugs for other Americans.

So I wanna approach this, how do we address the demand side of the equation regarding the drug problem in America with the idea that yes, that crackdowns can, can stop some of the drugs from coming in, but like a river it will find a way if that demand is always there.

And we start with Derek Schmidt.

- Well, I absolutely agree, agree.

You have to do both, Bob, you have to deal with supply and you have to deal with demand.

I've had 12 years in a law enforcement career prior to leaving public service.

I worked very closely with our law enforcement partners around the state and at the border.

I'm proud to be endorsed in this race by law enforcement organizations including the border patrol.

And so I see the importance on the supply side, but I also see the demand side.

And you know, I've said this for the entire time in my public service.

One of the things we did on my watch as Attorney General was we sued most many of the large drug companies and distributors and we accused them of essentially turning a blind eye deliberately for profit peddling addiction for profit in terms of opioid addiction, trying to drive up profits that way.

We won most of those lawsuits.

Some were still pending when I left office and I handed them off to my successor.

And as a result, we recovered an unprecedented amount of money for Kansas to use in funding anti addiction programming.

We got with the legislature and the governor who was of the other party, we worked together, we passed the Kansas Fights Addiction Act.

And there are now ongoing grants to communities all over this state, supporting creative efforts to try to deal with the demand side of addiction.

Addiction is insidious.

It takes part of your soul.

I've seen it in many, many different aspects around our state.

And I couldn't agree more that it's a high priority to try to figure out what works to get each individual an opportunity to be back on track.

Nancy Boyda.

- So I agree that the, the, the scourge of drugs is really damaging.

Not only our families one by one, there isn't one of us who doesn't know somebody who's been touched by this usually with tragic consequences.

And so what, just go back for a little while and ask the question, why are the Sacklers who really were at the very foundation of this, why are they still walking around not in prison?

Why are they not?

We, the foundation for all of what we're dealing with right now, started back then and yet because they're wealthy and yet because they have great attorneys, they haven't gotten any, any, any harsh, any harsh penalty for, for the, the, the hundreds of thousands of lives that they were directly responsible for.

So I would push back a little, and I do hear you that a lot of this is coming in through legal channels.

I'm not unaware of that, but I still believe and know that we have many things that are coming through drugs that are coming through our, our borders in both north and south.

And I still believe that we need to do everything we can to stop any drugs, any drugs from coming in illicitly or legally or illegally by citizens or whatever.

We need to stop that.

We need to put a lot of resources into that right now from all the borders and from legal people.

This is, this is, this is, this is just hurting so many families and we need to do something about that right now.

- John Hauer.

Well first of all, I like what you said.

I like hearing big pharma, taking a couple ls 'cause that doesn't happen very often.

So the more they lose, the better big pharma is the enemy.

They're not selling you cures, they're selling you sickness.

Well, first of all, I am against the war on drugs because I believe it's a futile effort.

I'm for the decriminal decriminalization of drugs, legal legalization.

The government just starts taking a check and the the drug pushers stay in business anyway because the government's charging too much.

So just decriminalize it and get it over with.

Now I am not like a big fan of drugs either.

I think they're a bad thing as far as most of them go.

So I definitely believe that people shouldn't do them.

The way to, the way to stop that is to make people do better with the economy, with prices, the cost of living.

When people are happy they don't do drugs.

It's a coping mechanism for the most part.

So if the people are doing better, the drug problem will be less.

- Alright, and now maybe to the, the great relief of everybody, enough of, of, of me.

And we'll get some questions from some, some real people here and candidates in this section.

You'll have one minute versus the the 1:30 come on up and right about here.

It will be great.

And we'll have our first question and I hand it over to you.

- Hi, my name is Mary.

I am a Washburn student by virtue of a program that Washburn offers that allows folks over the age of 60 to audit classes for free.

A program for which I'm very grateful.

But my question to you is, if you could host a private dinner with any US president, dead or alive, who would it be?

What would you serve him and what would you want to discuss with him?

- Thank you Mary.

We start with Nancy.

You have one minute and good luck.

- First I'm, first, well I think that I would want to have dinner with in the future, the future president in the first woman to be, to be the president of the United States.

I would like to sit down and have dinner with her and oh my heavens, I'm not a cook.

Oh, I'm not a cook.

So I'm not sure what I would serve.

I would and that's a, that's true story.

And Bob hasn't had a decent meal for, for months.

I'm so sorry.

But I would love to meet the future first for first woman president and just hear her story and see what she looks back on and see what she would do differently.

And hopefully she would recognize that she should have done some things differently.

But I, I would love to look into the future and say who's gonna be there, who's gonna be there and what's she gonna be like?

It would be fascinating.

Just don't ask me to cook.

- Okay.

John, John Hauer.

- Oh man.

Okay.

I'm gonna, I'm gonna pick Bill Clinton.

He seemed like he liked to party, so I think it'd be fun.

And I mean, I'd like to ask him some questions about his home state.

Arkansas is one of my favorite states.

I like those Ozarks down there.

They're beautiful.

And I'd also ask him what it was like to have a balanced budget for the very last time in American history.

Apparently so, yeah, bill Clinton, we'd eat steak - For sure.

Okay, I was gonna ask you Derek Schmidt, - Well at, at risk of sounding, you know, like I'm, I'm, I'm sort of pandering to the moderator here, but it it, I'd say Ike, I mean our only Kansas president obviously I never had a chance to meet him.

I I, I'd cook him pasta 'cause you can't screw that up too badly.

And, and that's a fairly safe deal.

But I'd love to talk with him about his journey from Kansas to, you know, being the Supreme allied commander having a remarkable view on America's role in the world and then obviously becoming president and you know, I've read some about it but I'd love to hear him talk about how that Kansas upbringing and those values connected to the leadership he provided.

- See you already get better questions when I'm not asking them.

So my answer, I pass it over to our next question.

I like that.

- Hello, my name is Austin.

I'm currently a sophomore here at Washburn University studying political science.

I have a question to you today about college costs.

Since the 1960s college tuition has risen dramatically.

According to the Kansas Board of Regents, average tuition and fees at a public university, not including room and board was $1,000 in 1964 and is over $10,000 today adjusted with inflation.

Private institutions have seen an even sharper increase in costs of college.

They were around $2,000 in 1964 and are over $38,000 today.

All of these rises in prices have increased since the higher Education Act of 1964.

For, what would you say to students out there who are not eligible for many of these, of these opportunities such as the Pell Grant and subsidized student loans such as myself And what solutions would you offer to each of these individuals and who do you blame or what do you blame for these sharp increases in prices?

- Alright, thanks.

We start with John Hauer.

- Well I am gonna blame exactly who I blame most of the time.

What you said about it started with that higher act sounds like a government program.

So I'm gonna blame the government for getting involved too much with higher education.

It's my belief that when the government gets involved with things, drives down competition and drives up prices And 90% of the time that's what happens when the government gets involved.

Usually it's with good intentions but it never ends up being a great idea.

What I would say to kids who are struggling right now, as much as I don't like what the military does, that's the path I took.

I probably wouldn't have gone to college if it wasn't for the military.

So that's a path.

I would also say that the trades right now do those, like I went to college and got a bachelor's degree and now I'm a truck driver and I'm making way better money than I did in my field.

So I would say yeah, just get a trade.

- Alright, Derek Schmidt, - I think it's a great question, not just for you but more generally for all of us who are trying to represent the second district, there's a lot of higher education in the second district.

We have the three public colleges, Washburn that we're at today as well as, you know, Pittsburg and Emporia.

We have, I think it's five or six private colleges and universities in the district and nearly not quite, but nearly half of the state's community colleges as well as some of the tech schools.

So a lot of post-secondary education are big issue for this district.

A couple of thoughts.

One is Bill Clinton was mentioned earlier, so I'll say I feel your pain.

We have two daughters who are in college, they're here with us tonight.

We are paying for college.

And so I know exactly what you're talking about.

It's a lot more than it was many years ago when I was there.

I, I think a couple of things.

One, sometimes it's important to focus on causes, what, what not to do.

And I think what you don't wanna do, kind of to John's point is shove a bunch more federal taxpayer money, sort of bad money chasing good if you will, or good money chasing bad.

I think that's part of how we got here is more and more free, cheap, low cost money goes in, prices go up, and then everybody has to pay more and, and nobody's really gotten ahead.

I would agree with the general point of, you know, we, we try to figure out a way to help folks like you help themselves and we also do a better job of trying to, to show folks college is terrific, it's a wonderful thing, but it's not the only good choice post high school.

- Alright, thank you very much.

We'll get right to, to our next, oh, Nancy Boyda.

I, so I told you I'd make a mistake.

I told you I'd make a mistake.

Yeah Nancy.

Austin, I think you might be 0 for 3.

We have a lot of of issues going on in this country.

I can't describe to you, it's as long as my arm, the list is just endless.

And college education, college tuition is among those things.

I don't believe I, I I believe that what I'm concerned about is our national deficit and our national debt.

And so taking on more, somebody asked me about about daycare and I'm like, I hear you.

We need help with daycare.

I get it.

Is it the federal government's rule?

And so I might, I might gain some or lose some here, but I don't believe that we should have across the board been doing all the, all of the school loan forgiveness.

Okay, how about medical debt forgiveness?

There's, there's so much need.

So what it looks like to those of us who are not really involved is there's a whole lot of building going on.

There's a whole lot of building going on.

- That's - Good.

Is that driving up the cross?

I don't know, but I'm concerned about bringing the federal government into it too much.

- All right.

- So thank you.

For what?

- Thank you.

- Thank you for your question and good luck to you.

Thank you.

- Thank you.

And now we're, now we're ready for the, the next question and I'll keep kind of keep track and we'll have you stand right there.

Great.

- Okay.

Hi, my name is Lillian and I'm a student at Washburn as well.

So according to the Pew Research Center in 2023, a survey found that at least 25% of U.S. adults do not feel that any of our political parties represent their values or their interests.

Well.

So I have a two part question for all of you.

First, regardless of your party affiliation, what are your personal top three core values?

And then secondly, how would you handle a situation in which your party's majority position conflicts with your core values, the interest of your constituents or both?

- And - We start with Derek Schmidt.

- Yeah, well thanks for the question.

I think it's, you know, it's a great one and I hear that sort of question a lot, especially from younger voters and I think that's a real positive.

I think it shows a sign of really sort of questioning the system and trying to figure out, you know, what you want it to look like over the course of your life being involved in it.

So a couple of thoughts on that and if I miss any points that you ask, 'cause it was multi-part, bring me back to it.

But in terms of, you know, my own sort of top core values, I think personal responsibility matters.

I was raised, you know, to believe you, you, you do the best you can to take care of yourself.

Doesn't mean you live on an island, doesn't mean you're not part of a community, but you are responsible ultimately for your choices in life and, and sort of how things go forward.

I think fiscal responsibility matters.

I mean, I agree with the point from earlier that we have to be worried about our federal debt.

My goodness, the amount of debt that we're about to leave your generation and folks coming after you is frightening to me.

John mentioned a little earlier that the budget was balanced back in the late nineties.

That's true for I think three years in a row now, you know, we're spending, what is it, like $2 trillion a year more than we're taking in and that's after revenues are way up.

So I mean those are high priorities for me and I can keep you, tell me what the rules are here, Bob.

I can either answer the rest of the part, you're out of time.

Respect the end signs.

So it goes quick.

Sorry.

Yes, - Nancy Boyda.

- That's an excellent question and I wish we had 10 minutes to talk about it.

So one of my core values, just, this is kind of random, I hadn't thought about it a lot, but we put out a newspaper and today I've put into the, one of my core values was raised very much with waste, not whatnot.

I was raised with depression, era appearance and personal responsibility, hard work, thrift, all of those things.

Our very core.

So I quoted Gandhi who said, and well this is very, I live simply so that others may simply live and I have, I have embraced living simply on a little farmhouse.

We heat it with wood.

So that's, that's, so that's living simply responsibility, thrift and then clearly my own family.

This is very, very much important to me and my faith.

What was the other, oh, breaking with my party.

Oh my god, that, so solutions are in the center.

I, I need people to know that.

I didn't pay you to ask that question, but that's my whole thing is that's what we do.

How we, I my party has come to understand that I'm gonna vote with them some of the time and I'm not gonna vote with them some of the other time that my party is not what, what gets me up in the morning and tells me how to vote.

- Alright, John Hauer.

- Well great question and I'm really glad, like Derek said, that younger voters are kind of questioning, especially the two party system.

I'm all about that.

I'd say my core values definitely first of all is individual freedoms.

That's by far and away my most important issue.

Second of all, free markets.

I think when business thrives, enterprise thrives, everybody thrives.

And I'd say anti-war is probably my third thing.

Kind of anti-war, anti foreign intervention.

I had to go over there a couple times and it's just not good.

Not good for the people that were helping.

It's not good for people here, it's not good for anybody.

So those are my three main values and it's hard to break from the Literarian party because you can pretty much be anything in Libertarian.

But our whole thing is like you can be whatever you want as long as you're not bothering other people.

So we're very much like a random hodgepodge of ideas at times in the libertarian party.

But I'm not gonna say we all get along but it works.

- Alright, thank you very much.

We go to our next questioner and I wanna make sure we get the next two questions in.

So timekeepers, let's go 50 seconds as, as long as we're equal, I think, I think we should be fine.

So go ahead.

- Hi, my name is Phillip.

I'm also a student at Washburn University and Donald Trump said that to him, the most beautiful word in the dictionary is tariffs.

So I thought I'd ask you a question about it.

He certainly implemented a variety of tariffs during his administration and many of them remained unchanged in Joe Biden's presidency.

Thus I think it stands to reason that the United States will maintain some version of the current tariffs under the administration of either of the presidential candidates.

How would you go about finding the proper balance when implementing tariffs such that they effectively protect American jobs and manufacturing, yet are not anti-competitive and will not result in retaliatory policies from affected countries?

- Alright, we start with Nancy Boyda.

Okay.

- Tariffs are a sales tax.

They are meant to raise the price of a good so that you so high that you buy it from America.

Instead, they are meant to be inflationary and China doesn't pay any of the tariffs.

The Dollar Tree pays the tariffs when they go get their stuff from the port, it's the dollar tree, not China.

If we could just get that across and then guess what?

The dollar tree where everything used to be a dollar, now it's a buck and a quarter.

Tariffs have devastated Kansas Farms, we a billion dollars a year from Kansas Farms.

So can we make it much more targeted?

And to be honest, I don't understand why Joe Biden has pulled them back and I would beg that he, he would have, I don't agree.

And Donald Trump is saying that he's gonna do a 60% across the board.

If that doesn't strike fear into everybody's heart, it will be massively inflationary cause enormous amount of economic disruption.

Targeted tariffs.

Targeted tariffs.

- Alright John Hauer, - I love that you asked that right after I mentioned free markets.

That's awesome.

So yeah, I'm very anti tariff.

I think there should be no tariffs.

I think there should be free global trade.

I believe that everybody benefits at this point.

We're kind of a global economy and there's, I mean it is what it is.

There's no going back on that.

It's a global economy.

The more we benefit each other with trade, the more everybody wins, the more peace there is, the more prosperity there is.

So I would say no tariffs, no tariffs ever.

Just just know free market.

- Alright, - Derek Schmitt.

- Well I've said throughout this campaign I'm generally a free trader.

That's what I believe.

It's my philosophy.

I also recognize we live in the real world and sometimes a mere absence of tariffs doesn't equal free trade.

For example, when we are flooded with cheap goods from China sometimes and the more extreme examples made with the equivalent of modern slave labor paid pennies per day, if anything at all, that's not free trade.

That's an unfair playing field.

And I think there is a role for tariffs or other tough trade policy to try to balance that out.

So I do think you have to have a fairness in your trade policy and that's not a shocking presentation that's generally been American policy for as long as I can remember.

Many, many, many years before.

You know, I think President Trump was very effective in using the threat of tariffs to bring folks to the table to negotiate better trade deals.

For example, the rewriting of NAFTA and the U-S-M-C-A.

And I think that's been an effective negotiating strategy, but I am reluctant to embrace the idea of of sort of all tariff all the time.

- Alright, thank you very much.

And it's our last question.

Again, you can celebrate or or be upset it, it depends on how you feel.

There we go.

- Hello, my name is Elizabeth Cox and I'm a first generation student at Washburn University.

I'm planning to move into an apartment in the near future, but I've ran into two key issues.

Housing is quite expensive and competitive.

Currently the average price of rent in Kansas is $1,200, while nationally it's 1700 or $1,700.

Unfortunately, many students like myself end up working full-time to balance both the cost of housing and education.

So my question to you is how do you plan to address the issue of and ensure affordable housing, particularly for students and working class citizens like myself?

- Start with John - Hauer.

Well, I would like to blame the usual culprit, the government.

I think that if we deregulated the, you know, all the building regulations and not all of them, I mean we don't want stuff just falling down, but I mean just, I'll bet I don't know how thick that book is, but I bet it's a real thick book.

Just start going through their top to bottom deregulating as much as possible.

If contractors are building and making more money, they'll do it.

And with more supply there'll be cheaper prices.

And I think, yeah, deregulation is the key - And thank you Derek.

And we're gonna again going 50 seconds.

Thank you.

- In general, I agree with that approach.

I think, you know, I was meeting with a group of of builders here in Topeka not too long ago and we had exactly this discussion.

How can we make it so that you all who build housing for a living will do more rehab housing for a living?

We'll do more of it.

And their number one answer was get this red tape out of our way.

Let us do things the way we've always done it.

We can make some improvements here and there for safety or whatever's needed, but the volume, the weight.

In fact, one of 'em actually told me, I wouldn't swear to the numbers told me that the average is somewhere between 20 and 20, $25,000 of the cost of a house is added cost from regulations added in the last four years.

I wouldn't swear that's true, but that's what they told me.

And so I do think that can make a huge, huge difference.

What I think we don't wanna do is have the federal government step in and and subsidize even more.

That's just gonna drive the price up.

I know one of our presidential candidates has suggested that and i, I just, I think it's gonna make things worse, not better.

- Alright, Nancy Boyda.

- So thank you for the question.

This is a huge issue and I can't believe that I can hear my opponents say that he doesn't think that we ought to do something about this.

The free market isn't taking care of it and a lot of the second district, it costs a lot more to build a, a place to live than you can even sell it or rent it or do anything.

So the builders are building houses where they can make money, but that may not be a place that you can afford to live in.

So as much as I wanna careful and, and, and not run up the deficit, I believe that this is very much different.

Believe that this is a place where we can come in and rebalance some things and of course absolutely, I it's a no brainer.

We have to cut some of the red tape, especially when it comes to zoning and, and and building.

So we, we absolutely need to do that.

And I wish you all of the luck in the world because it's really hard to find a place to, to, to put a roof over your head today.

So we need, we need some increased inventory.

Thank you.

- Alright, thank you all for, for answering those questions and thanks for the questions.

Well, we have wrapped up the question and answer phase of this conversation and it's time for our candidates to now make their final case, at least in this forum, directly to the voters of the second district.

They will each have a minute and 30 seconds to do so, and Derek Schmidt is gonna go first.

- Well, thanks so much for joining us for this conversation thanks to Washburn and to KTWU for hosting it.

As I said at the beginning, this is a small contribution we all make to this great American experiment and constitutional self-government.

This is how we're supposed to be debating among ourselves and deciding which path we want to choose.

And make no mistake about it, elections are about choosing a path forward in the, in the narrow sense.

The voters in the second district will choose one of us to be their advocate, their voice in Washington DC for the next two years as America makes very difficult decisions on all the subjects we've talked about and many more.

You want somebody I believe who best reflects your values and who you believe will be an effective advocate on your part to try to get things done.

I hope that I can earn your vote in that sense.

I've had the privilege of being your advocate for several years as Attorney General, and I'd like to continue that as your member of Congress.

It's also true that none of us goes to Washington in a vacuum.

Each of us will go out there, whoever is selected in this race and be part of a much broader system.

My democrat opponent likes to say how often she broke with her party.

What she doesn't tell you is how often she supported her party.

She voted with Nancy Pelosi 95% of the time.

The first time her very first vote in Congress made Nancy Pelosi speaker when she got fired by the Kansas voters.

Last time it was Barack Obama who picked her up and gave her a job.

She said this past summer, just this last July, that we ought to thank Joe Biden for saving our country.

And she thinks Kamala Harris would be an excellent next president of the United States.

I disagree with all of that.

I think America is better off if we move in a more conservative freedom loving Republican direction.

And I would ask for your vote in this election.

Thank you.

- All right, next up is John Hauer.

- So let's circle back to what I said about giving away your power and your freedoms to the government.

Let's talk about who the government is.

Well first of all, it's gonna be one of us and that's a fact.

So do you really want me rather mediocre delivery truck driver making big decisions for you or would you on the other hand rather it be a career politician?

And worse yet, there's only gonna be four Kansans Max up there in Congress.

So making decisions about your healthcare, your taxes, and your rights up there in DC will be politicians from the sticks of Wyoming to the Democratic People's Republic of California, not the best and brightest minds or true leaders of the people or anybody with real skin in the game.

And their work boots on the ground.

Nope.

Just a bunch of very corruptible and bribing politicians up there in Washington deciding for you where all that federal income tax that magically disappears from your paycheck goes.

And when that isn't enough to cover the budget, turn on the money printers and inflate away the future.

So in a way, inflation is the most insidious tax of all because it always hurts the working class the most.

So please, for the love of God, Taylor Swift or whatever else you consider holy, please stop giving the federal government more power because no matter which of us wins this election, if we do it at the expense of freedom, we all lose.

So stay weird, stay wild, and stay free.

- Nancy Boyda, - So much is at Stake Healthcare our border and housing.

But what we need most is leadership to get us out of this endless partisanship.

It takes strength and courage and guts and leadership, and it takes a vision.

And I wanna share three points.

First, I've already shown you that I have the courage and the guts to stand up to my party.

Second, every candidate receives dozens of these questionnaires in the mail from special interest, and they want you to promise how you will vote.

The public never sees them.

No wonder Congress is broken.

Partisanship is deeply entrenched before people even get to dc.

But against all advice, I have declined to fill out these questionnaires.

I don't know of any other competitive candidate who has.

I want you to know that I will work for you and not the special interests.

Third, I believe in collaboration and I will call on our Kansas delegation to publicly work together.

So what if Senator Jerry Moran and I traveled across the state together promoting a bipartisan immigration bill?

Do you think we could finally pass a common sens Immigration bill?

Kansans are mostly moderate, practical people and they're tired of the dysfunction in Congress.

I offer a path forward that brings people together, but this will only happen if enough Kansans vote for and demand that elected officials work together from the center and not the extremes.

We need real leadership to get us out of this endless mess.

And I have a vision that Kansans can lead the way.

- You have been watching the candidates asking for your vote for the Kansas Second Congressional District.

Our thanks to Nancy Boyda, John Hauer and Derek Schmidt for being part of this important element of the Democratic process.

On behalf of our debate partners, the political science department at Washington University, and from all the production crew and volunteers here at KTWU, I'm Bob Beatty.

Thanks for watching.

Remember to vote on November 5th if you haven't already.

Goodbye.