tv Campaign 2018 MN 1st Congressional U.S. House Debate CSPAN October 20, 2018 2:06am-2:53am EDT
we need them as a counterbalance to iran. the simplest solution, the simplest situation to be in, but i think we are doing very well and have come along way in a short period of time and it will get solved. ok? >> c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by cable television companies. we continue to bring you unfiltered congress coverage, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events washington, dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. >> with 18 days until the election, c-span is your primary source for campaign 2018. next, a debate from minnesota's first congressional district jim hackerublican
this is 45 minutes. >> this is npr news. minnesota has eight seats in the u.s. house and at least would of them are competitive this year. one of those seats is in the first district in southern minnesota. the seat is open because tim walz is running for governor. several good-sized cities ,ncluding rochester, mankato worthington. let's meet the candidates on the republican side. , this is the first time he has tried for the seat. the other candidate is dan fee and, an army veteran who did two tours in iraq.
he worked in the defense department during the obama administration. thanks very much both of you for being here today. >> happy to be here. won't have a lot of rules this hour, but i want to give each of you a fair chance to stake your views. i got quite a few questions, so i will get to those. supportereen a strong of president trump. he was in rochester. back the president 100% or a check on power on the executive branch? i've beenrn: campaigning and for my whole life believed in certain conservative and fundamental positions as far as defending the constitution and other things and it so happens the campaign i run -- rain in 2016 matched up on the issues with donald trump. i am pleased he is our president thewe are moving country in
right direction. i have set for a long time, the legislative branch needs to reassert its authority in many areas. during the obama years, i wasn't the obama the way administration had expanded regulations contrary to the intent of the congress. i thought they needed to pull that back. i supported the reins act which to affirmire congress major regulations going forward. the pa is balances, another area i didn't agree with is president obama -- epa another area i didn't agree with president obama. there are two fundamental choices. which direction i we going to go? the direction of the resistance, the people who want to replace president trump? the people want to take us back to the obama years and then some? that is where my opponent is on. keept to partner and working with like-minded people in washington to move in the right direction, to keep us safe, because progress --
process -- prosperous. feehanor: but let dan speak for himself. what is the role of congress as it pertains to the white house? i would be remiss, thank you for putting this together. thanks for having the forum. it is a great chance to see a contrast of approaches and substance. his could be more fundamental. i'm running to be an independent voice and washington, d.c. a constitution. it is one of the many ways in which congress in washington is dysfunctional right now because it is hyper partisan because people are unwilling to work across the aisle and people are unwilling to be a check and balance against the president. i have been clear where i stand on this. because i am not beholden to any corporate special interests, i am willing to work with the president when it benefits minnesota, but i am willing to stand up to him when it doesn't.
i have watched my opponent stand he said president as everything is going great in the middle of an impact -- a trade war that affect us directly. an unwillingness to make congress that check and balance it must be per our constitution. moderator: assad, let's talk about those tariffs -- , let's talk about that. here by thesent out resistance to take power in this district and take it back and have a left-wing viewpoint and as far as working the president, did you support him on the tax cuts? did you support him -- what do you support him on. much that you did. i think every democrat voted against the farm bill. they don't like work for welfare. not an independent voice. you are a very leftist voice and
you will go back and work with pelosi and work against the president every step of the way. moderator: i have to let dan feehan respond. mr. feehan: this is the tone of his campaign. his fourth run at the seat and this is what he brings to the table. this idea of an assigned them. -- us and them. independent leadership is working at the burning pentagon and deciding it is time to suit up. is the ability to jump into a middle school classroom to make sure students are able to learn. leadership is the idea i said to myself, it is time to serve the country again. no one told me to do anything at any point in my life. that is what leadership is. moderator: -- critical thinking, i am happy to demonstrate that. do youor: dan feehan agree with president trump on any issue? mr. feehan: absolutely, and i
have watched my opponent turn. the president wanted to end the war in afghanistan. it turns 17 this year. we have been at war for 17 years. $5 trillion. the president was of that mind and something i hoped to partner with him on but he changed his views and you know who changes with him, my opponent jim hagedorn. mr. hagedorn: i wrote a column in 2014 when i ran against tim walz for the first time, the war had gone on long enough. we should end the war. -- when i quoted as saying anything different since then? you are working for obama in washington, d.c. you never working our district today in our life until wallace sent you out from washington. 80 if you were here comes you would have read that column. that was my position. should we talk about the issues? moderator: is there anywhere jim hagedorn where you disagree with president trump?
mr. hagedorn: i didn't like the omnibus spending bill and said i wouldn't vote for another one because it -- doesn't allow government reform and appropriations. we are just kicking the can down the road and making our get larger. i am not a fan of tariffs. i think tariffs are good for the governments that impose them and the industries they try to protect, but that is a diminishing return. as far as what is the president is doing on tariffs and trade, he said china was cleaning our clock. they were manipulating our currency, stealing our intellectual property. they were doing all sorts of things that he wanted to reset things with china and mexico and canada. we are already reset with mexico and canada. i support what the president did their. it helped with gary terris, lots of things in agriculture and d -- dairy board
tariffs and lots of things in agriculture. open up global markets and make sure we have the best agricultural product in the world. i supported the tpp negotiated by president obama. that was a bipartisan thing. i don't know if dan supports that. we have to do what we have to do for southern minnesota and our interest. i would represent our interests every day on the job. moderator: dan feehan on tariffs and trade and the tpp. mr. feehan: this idea of checks and bill in the -- balances and my -- the unwillingness of my opponent. at farm fest come he told farmers of our district to be patient. be patient with their paychecks because he wanted to support the president's policy that was executed without any role of congress were check and balance to how that would hurt our economy. he did that because his career has been based in washington, d.c. he is an insider to what these
things are about and what he would bring, i don't understand why the -- there are some openings in the trump administration. it would be a great opportunity for you to continue your work there? mr. hagedorn: i grew up on a farm in southern minnesota. mr. feehan: as did i. mr. hagedorn: you didn't grow up in this district. there are 21 counties, where did you live before you came here to run for congress? mr. feehan: the first district in minnesota. moderator: hang on. mr. hagedorn: you are being disingenuous and phony because the first district changed 20 years ago. you never lived in the 21 counties in this district. i grew up near truman. my great grandfather grew up southern minnesota farmer. committee,n the ag believe it or not, i would be the closest thing to a farmer on the committee because they don't have any anymore on the ag committee and there are no republicans from minnesota in the house and the senate on the committee.
i would work with all the folks from different parts of the country, different parties to make sure all of agriculture was successful. that has been my background and i worked for a minnesota ag committee. the we did good things in washington and i won't take issue with you demeaning my service. i won't demean yours. i get confused on how you forget the 30 years he spent in washington, d.c. leading soldiers in wartime, leading students in the classroom. in action is in washington, d.c., hyper bipartisanship which my opponent represents. i am trying to represent minnesota. i am trying to represent everyone there because time spent as a soldier, a teacher, working in the pentagon taught me you have to work with people that you don't agree with. that is what hard work is.
mr. hagedorn: can i answer that? here is how my experience in washington converts. i work for a minnesota congressman for seven years. we carry many votes in a bipartisan fashion. a welfare bill i need -- we need to reinstate. nra to worked with the make sure that we got rid of the 1968 gun control act, which was restricting firearms rights to the american people. we worked on a number of issues for rural enterprise zones to push that idea when people were doing it for urban areas. i understand how the congress works out there. i was also a treasury congressional relations officer. i downsized my own federal agency. it is unheard of. we put a bill together, it closed four check writing centers and my agency eliminated saved $2 workforce, billion, improved service to the american people. i've moved those through the
congress, worked in the congress can't have the experience to know where the bodies are buried to unearth them and reform government and outsize -- downsize government. mr. feehan: washington is full of jim hagedorns. that's why it is broken. beholden tore special interests, which is why i have not taken a dime. i know what prevents parties from moving anything forward, i hope we talk about health care and things like that, the people who have an unwillingness as they do right now. that's what people hate. that's why people are cynical about politics today. mr. trump: we will get a chance to talk about any number of issues. we will get a chance to talk about a number of issues. listeneruestion from a who said, what would you do or what could the federal government do to address continued poor water quality in almost all of southern minnesota lakes and streams? mr. feehan: absolutely.
we have to take advantage of that. farmers are stewards of their own land and you have to make policy through carrots and not sticks. on the rest of the community to clean up water too, but you have to have investment. that is where infrastructure comes in because it is not just roads and bridges, but investment in water. no one knows that more than the community of worthington. it is not just quality, but having water in the first place. farmers torole for play because they have done incredible work to clean up water along the way. it should just be based on carrots alone. the idea of regulations becomes part of this. which to be one in farmers are a part of the conversation, leading the conversation because at the end of the day, they has much interest if not more in the quality of land, soil, and water. moderator: jim hagedorn on clean water? mr. hagedorn: i was talking to a head of the minnesota farm bureau about these issues two days ago. the bureau promote -- endorsed
me because they are pro ag. what has been going on is overreach. during the obama administration, we had a war against agriculture. part of that was led by the epa who put out this waters of the united states, a complete overreach. we had people of minnesota with buffer strips and everything else. it has gone too far. they don't give farmers credit for being good stewards of the land. farmers don't want to waste their fertilizer, they don't want to do that. it costs them money. they are good stewards of the land and we need to work together, but we need the -- what needs to happen for a representative of an act-based district, -- ag-based districts. get rid of the overreaching washington. does dan support that, i don't know. he never will address it.
it is a balance. i don't take the premise that every lake and stream in southern minnesota is polluted to the point of no return. i think many of them are clean, it depends on the standards. mr. feehan: you could probably demonstrate through science, i imagine? mr. hagedorn: it depends on the standards. mr. feehan: you said it is impossible to determine. mr. hagedorn: i said it was possible. i think we are doing just fine. moderator: let me remind everybody, we are listening to a debate between the two candidates for congress in minnesota's first district. the democrat is dan feehan. the republican is jim hagedorn. the question of health care came up and i got a question from a listener. what will you do to resolve the health care cost crisis? what would you do in congress to make health care insurance more affordable and available? mr. hagedorn: we have to repeal obama care replace it with free-market reforms.
at a minimum, send it back to the states. minnesota did not need obamacare. this was the one state in the union that didn't need obamacare. we had 94% of the people covered. said keepeople that your doctor can't keep your plan, say $2500, the obama administration people like dan say let's go to socialized medicine. universal health care like they have all around the world and that will be the answer. that will make it worse and i hope we can talk about that later. i support getting back to having insurance ask like insurance. like insurance. let people spend money for insurance, medical, pretax. nobody pays tax on that anymore. accounts out there so they can invest their money, save it, incentives for healthy
living. you keep your own money, have transparency in cost. people can shop. major catastrophic coverage with a deductible that would be reasonable. that can be done by the insurance companies of the private sector and after that, a high risk pool for people with pre-existing medical needs paid for by insurance companies, backed up by the government. everybody gets quality, timely care. nobody goes broke over it. that is how insurance should operate. mr. feehan: obamacare said kids could stay on their kids insurance until they were 26 and it also said insurance companies could discriminate against people with pre-existing medical conditions. >> we weren't doing that in minnesota and states can handle it. i trust with a good governor and legislature, minnesota will get it right. more than bureaucrats deciding the standards of care for our doctors, taking away our dr.-patient relationships.
obamacare was an absolute disaster for southern minnesotans. we had people paying $30,000 a year for premiums with deductibles so high, the underlying insurance is virtual worthless. my opponent likes to bring up conversations from 2010 because he has been running for congress since then. i am living in 2018 right now and the reality of the system shapeg people every, way and form. the status quo is not working. but my opponent is offering a chance to go backwards. that is not an option we can even consider with seriousness. we have to go forward. -- theve in the market principle of free markets, but the idea that someone on their private insurance -- let's talk about the individual market. i talked to a farmer whose two kids have the flu. and to get them treated and paid $750 out of. she said she would go to the
doctor next time. in a country where flu deaths are on the rise. i would start the idea of a public option that people can buy into. public option into medicare so people pay into it and it becomes an alternative. everything my opponent described of the private system is a for-profit system where people will make money off of health. there has to be another option that makes incentive for companies to drive prices downward and not make a buck off people. the only way congress will be able to delve a way forward on this is to not have people under the influence of big pharma and insurance companies, something my opponent is under the influence of and i am not. moderator: jim hagedorn, let's move on with letting people buy into medicare. mr. hagedorn: it will destroy medicare, for one thing. the system is about bankrupt now so you will add to it. ok, take it to him -- wherever you want, but that is my contention.
socialized medicine, universal health care, single-payer, whatever you want to call it, is going to destroy medicine as we know it. medicine as you know it. it will make sure we have inferior medical quality. medical innovation will suffer. if you want people -- more people on medicare, guess what. the mayo clinic and fine institutions of medicine will be reimbursed at $.50 on the dollar. they can't sustain the model. if you do this, it will destroy the progress and growth in rochester, minnesota and much of southern minnesota. all the buildings going up, people that flow into rochester, that comes to an end. this is a big choice for the people. you want to put people in charge that will take us to socialized medicine or people who will keep us with the private sector? as far as incentives, there is a way we do business. we have incentives.
companies produce good medical devices and so forth. , and drugs and everything else. doctors go to school for many years and want something in return. there is nothing wrong with that. mr. feehan: the mayo clinic is the right idea here. they have to be at the table. this institution has been a leader in the world on health care. why not have them at the table? about large-scale health reform to ship this country to preventative care rather than treating sick people when they are at their wits end, when they don't have insurance or can't afford it. if you expand medicare, it does pay less than private insurers, right? how does that help the mayo clinic? mr. feehan: if the mayo clinic is a part of it in the first place. to find the right incentives to keep them apart of it so people can see care. i talk to doctors at the mayo clinic all the time who treat patients who either don't have health care they can afford or no health care at all. that is the default right now. that is the system under which
we can for those costs. if the mayo winick is part of the form then we can ship this country's cost toward preventative care and we said costs in the end so these discussions about reimbursements become a moot point. mr. hagedorn: i am not dumping on the mayo clinic right now, but they don't take you medicare patients for a recent in jacksonville and phoenix. the model won't be sustained. they can't make it work on $.40 and $.50 on the dollar. that is what socialized medicine brings us. a lot of people fly in from around the world to go to rochester to get the finest in the world. int comes to an end because the single-payer system, the government controls all the outcomes, who goes in and by the way, you want a system like in canada, germany, great britain? you know who is flying in today to rochester? andle from canada, germany, great britain because they are on a waiting list and can't get quality care. where will we go when they destroy that? >> the u.s. has the most
expensive system in the world and not the best outcomes in the world. mr. hagedorn: we have the highest quality medical care in the world. >> not if you look at the studies, but let me ask you a question. which is what people are complaining about when they go to the doctor. medicare --: medical care is expensive. i don't know too many americans traveling around the world for their medical care. i do know of a lot of people coming in from foreign countries to get medical care in the united states. as far as driving down costs, you say i want to take you backward. transparency in cost is backward? people to shop. it brings competition. it allows people to make choice. we don't have that right now.
what is the incentive for healthy living right now? you do have to pay money out but evenave to dump money out if you don't use it. you get to keep your own money if you have an incentive. those are the types of things we can have with free-market and make it more into what we would expect in the united states of america. moderator: dan feehan, final word on this? when i talk about moving backwards it is back to the time when people are not guaranteed care. it takes us backward to a place at you're not being entirely honest about. mr. hagedorn: in minnesota? mr. feehan: yes. the people paid more for care that they have based on their conditions right now. mr. hagedorn: you think they are
paying less now then with obamacare? mr. feehan: you talked about the cost of everything -- why do we accept that? mr. hagedorn: if you think things are better for minnesotans after obamacare, you really need to get around. every -- talk to mr. feehan: everyone i talked to want affordable health care. are costs we are going to end up paying in the first place. there are hundreds of millions all i want ton -- do is make sure it is as affordable as it can be. mr. hagedorn: and the people who are on private insurance are essentially paying for the people who are on government insurance.
government insurance will reimburse hospitals and doctors with $.40 or $.50 on the dollar. if you expand that, you're taking money out of the system. if you think that works, go to canada, great britain, and germany and ask those people if it is working for them. moderator: a listener asked a question about the tax bill that passed last year. if you were in congress, would you have voted for this? mr. feehan: we still need tax reform. tax reform that provides middle-class tax cuts are a clay. and that idea at a rate higher than it did to our top earners. we missed an incredible opportunity. and the idea that millionaires and billionaires took an incredibly large share of that. we increased our debt. that is unacceptable to me right now. moderator: you would have voted against that? i wouldan: i upload -- oppose that.
it is dishonest is it just that working people got the best deal they could've had. moderator: jim hagedorn? mr. hagedorn: you want to vote against it like all of the other democrats. i would have voted for a. it was a step in the right direction. it is mostly a corporate and business tax cut and it was moneyed to try to bring back from overseas and to stimulate the economy. it was something that was good for farmers. you should get down there and the to the farmers about tax reform bill. when they do get to that she'll mind we can talk more about the trade war if you want but it was good for many people. many families in the district who are collecting $1000 or more each year. should we have more tax reform? individual tax reform? for that.o called one of my proposals is to make sure that anyone spending money and it can be on education,
health insurance, medical care, all those types of things -- tax-free. don't pay federal income tax. and also, after that, get rid of the owners -- onerous code. allow people to hold their own money and spend it the way they see fit. that is the best way we get people power. we take it from washington and give it back to them as individuals. moderator: let me ask a follow-up then from another listener who asked what he called the biggest question to ask anyone going to washington --how will you pay down the federal debt? mr. hagedorn: one congressperson is not going to go out and pay down the federal debt but you can be part of a coalition of fiscally responsible people. i am happy to do that if democrats want to join us. the guy said, no more omnibus
bills. we need to reform every agency in the government starting with the pentagon. want to make sure that we have the strongest military on earth, we can take that money and reinvest it in two soldiers pay -- soldiers' pay. when i was in washington, i took a little agency and found a niche. we went through president clinton and up to the help. i worked with steny hoyer. i work in a bipartisan way. if every congress came up with a way to save a half billion dollars or more, we would get rid of this deficit. why should the taxpayers of the u.s. pay for federal employees to go to and from work? give them free transportation? why do we do that? they are some of the most affluent people in the country as a group. they don't even pay tax on that benefit.
that would save half $1 billion. moderator: dan feehan, what would you do with that? mr. hagedorn: reforming the military. mr. feehan: as a takeaway, that will be an interesting one. we just talked about when of the biggest issues -- the idea that the tax bill that has been passed has added to our debt. let us talk about the challenges. we need real tax reform that does the opposite. where someone making more than a million dollars got an average cut of $69,000. that is unacceptable. we have been at war for 17 straight years. if we ended the war on terror today including every single cost along the way of being there in every country, it would be $5 trillion. the biggest thing that we could
do is to shoulder the burden of whether or not we need to be at war perpetually as we are today. moderator: let me ask you another question on a different subject that a listener brought up. the u.n. council on climate change put out a report this week and said that we have to take drastic action or it will get really bad. drastic action soon. do you agree with that report? mr. feehan: yes, i agree with that report. we have had a couple of debates in the last week. we had won a couple of nights ago in which my opponent to clarity was not sure about climate change. it was just the earth warming and cooling as per usual. i have a different perspective on this. like secretary mattis and general dunford who believe that long-term -- the biggest threat facing our country in terms of security is climate change. and the question about what you
do about it has to be the next immediate question. and that has to be answered from the perspective of southern minnesota as well. it is changing the way we are farming, changing the landscape of our district. falls.nging the hookah president that does not embrace the paris of courts. it poses a threat. we have to make sure we do everything possible locally. we should not be reliant on fossil fuels. and it is making sure that arele like in the u.s. navy trying to become energy independent in your championing those technologies. if you are -- if your opening premise is the idea that -- i don't believe in it, we have another thing coming. mr. hagedorn: whether you believe in it or not, it really doesn't matter. it is what you would do about
it. if you think it is a problem and it is man-made, what you going to do about it? there are a lot of people including those on the left and their answer is to spend money. to turn our economy upside down over the premise that at some point the world is going to come to an end? i do not agree with that. it would drive up the cost for everyone in our country and make us less affluent. iat i support is this -- support a policy of energy independence for the united and all the means above of approach. i do not believe dan understands the issue. the united states is energy dependent for every source but crude oil. the only way to become more independent is to drill for crude oil in the united states. and i think the trump administration has done a good job in this area. we also need to make sure that we have the infrastructure in efficiently our
energy resources. we have pipelines. distribution points. refineries. those are things that the democrats are not too fond of anymore. that is why a lot of lot of people are leaving their party. they don't like keystone. president obama blocked that. and make sure we have a policy in place to have abundant and reliable energy. when the price of energy goes up, the price of every product and service in our economy goes out. all of these things that dan and obama want to do will take power from the united states and send it around the world to our trading adversaries. the point is this -- he says he wants to do something about it. do you support a carbon tax? do you support capping trade? do you support the regulations on fracking? and just to be clear, you don't support any of those.
mr. hagedorn: no. mr. feehan: this is a real thing. there are u.s. military installations around the world at risk because of climate change. came forward and said we have to do something because of climate change, what would your answer be? mr. hagedorn: if secretary mattis said that -- but i did not say -- but i did not hear him say he was in favor of the paris accord or the carbon tax. mr. feehan: he wants to make sure that we are supporting and defending our service members. are american troops at risk because of climate change. moderator: how do you get there, dan feehan? mr. feehan: we have to make sure it that we are energy independent which means going away from fossil fuel. as long as we are doing that, we
have to do that in the safest possible way. -- if we aren't doing everything, we will fall further behind. i need to make sure that a climate reform bill makes its way forward and retaining idea possible to reduce our carbon footprint. you have to be open to changing things and taking advantage of the opportunity we have right now economically. in southern minnesota, to take an champion solar power and win. mr. hagedorn: you walked through a parade last year with a sign change climate change. you do support a carbon tax. you do support the paris climate accords. -- ieehan: you have set have said that twice already. mr. hagedorn: you do support the regulations that obama had on
fracking and methane to stop us from getting our own resources. and that is why the farm bureau and the farmers support me. what is a former supposed to do to act on climate change? mr. feehan: make their crops more resilient. that in theke sure event of southern minnesota dealing with more rain, had we make sure our crops are more resilient? this is a matter of action versus in action. mr. hagedorn: i think your positions are clear and they do not reflect the views and values of southern minnesota. moderator: ok, let me ask you this question --do we need a wall on the mexican border? mr. hagedorn: of course we need a wall. we need a wall and fencing and every security measure that we can get so that you legal force do notgs -- that they
come into the united states unless they come through a legal process. what we need to do and this has been a problem for 30 or 40 years. we finally have a president that wants to deal with that's. -- with this. the other half of the problem is that we have five or so million people that have flown into the united states on temporary visas and have never left. some of them from terrorist countries. some could be people like those on 9/11 that could cause us problems. we need to secure our country in many different ways. we also need merit based immigration. we should be in a position to know who is coming. will they assimilate? very good chance that they could contribute to our economy? will they become a part of the fabric of america? and if not, it is not a good idea for us to have them here. mr. feehan: the premise of the
question is flawed. do we need to keep our country safe? absolutely. there is no one better to represent southern minnesota than someone who had two tours in iraq and who spent three and have years in the pentagon trying to keep this country safe. and i am insulted by the idea that my opponent thanks i could not be a part of this conversation because that is not what my service taught me in the first place. keeping our country safe does not start with one way to do it. it starts with a broader conversation about the real threats that face our country which increasingly have nothing to do with the border but bioterrorism and cyber security. if our entire focus is spent on the idea of the wall, we are going to miss thanks that are a bigger threat to this country. if we want to have that conversation, great. if you want to talk about immigration reform, i am happy to do that. people are in need of workers.
people want an economic and a moral case for immigration reform. we need to take advantage of the human capital that we have to keep our economy strong. i believe in a guest worker program. law ande in making daca i believe in the heart of working people who are paying -- they our district should have a pathway to becoming a citizen. moderator: jim hagedorn come up what about -- mr. hagedorn: i respect your service. i know your service. everyone does. this is about service in the u.s. house of representatives and it does not seem like whatever you learned in the military has transformed into informed positions. people in southern minnesota want order security. they do not want sanctuary politics. saying thatecord the federal government should do
its job and state and community should have nothing to do with it. you make minnesota a sanctuary state like you are talking about, you're going to have illegal aliens rolling in here driving up crime, chaos, and our cost. that is not good for the people. we need to protect them. that is one of the reasons why law enforcement endorse me because they know i am on their side and i don't want to make their job more difficult. moderator: jim hagedorn, would you do anything on immigration reform? mr. hagedorn: absolutely. have ave we have to verifiable work program so people can come into the u.s. in order to help farmers and others. they come here on a temporary basis. if they want to go to and from, that is fine. maybe we set it up so they can build up credits towards citizenship. i supported the goodlatte will. -- bill.
it made sure that we would have border security so when we do deport somebody, they do not come back over. .e. do their job? mr. feehan: i think your experiences in life shape your character. my up when it is suggested that the things i learned overseas were not good for southern minnesota. this is a consistent theme. that while ison was overseas serving our country, fighting for our freedom, he sat behind his desk blogging about our military veterans. this is a character in viewpoint he has towards the 40,000 veterans in our district. that is telling of how he would represent them in congress. this differently. i took an oath of office to serve in support this
constitution regardless of party or anyone along the way and that is the same both you take as a member of congress. i experience informs how i would represent. mr. hagedorn: that is a stretch. the idea that because you are in the military that all of a sudden on this political issue where you take a liberal position that you are qualified and that you will speak for the people -- i don't think so. you are the candidate if the people want open borders and --. i am the candidate for the people to choose. moderator: i was going to give you a minute at the end for a closing statement but we are down to 30 seconds now. mr. feehan: i hope our listeners saw a contrast today. thank you for putting this together. the contrast was clear. it is not just a matter of substance but about a matter of approach. there is hyper partisan represented by my up on it. it makes no sense to send
another jim hagedorn there. it is time for an independent voice. i have been informed by my service. sounded very that partisan to me. i am a product of the district. i have been out here working for five years, over 21 counties. 50,000 people. i reflect the views and values of the people of southern minnesota and i humbly ask for their vote and i look forward to the next few weeks of the campaign with you, dan. mr. feehan: you as well, jim carrey moderator: thanks to that sent in questions. election day is coming up on november 6. i hope this helped you to make up who you were going to vote for. thank you for listening and have a great weekend. with the midterm elections
just days away, watch of the competition for the control of congress on c-span. see for yourself the candidates and the debates from key house and senate races. make c-span your primary source for campaign 2018. now, derek johnson who serves as president and ceo of the naacp talking about voter mobilization leading up to the november elections, good morning. statistics show us that about 56% of african-americans showed up for the 2016 elections. do you expect that kind of turnout in -- in 2018? guest: the job of the naacp is to increase turnout.