Hello. Good evening. Welcome to the seventh event of the 2022 Digger debate series and Vermont's first US House debate of the general election. My name is Mike Docherty and I'm a senior editor here at BT Digger. I know you didn't tune in to hear from me, but I do want to make a few announcements before I outline the rules of tonight's debate and introduce the candidates and moderators. So first off, BT Digger has two more general election debates on the calendar. On Wednesday, September 28th, we'll host the gubernatorial candidates in person in Burlington at Main Street Landing. That event will also be live streamed. And the following Wednesday, October 5th, we'll conduct an online only Lieutenant gubernatorial debate. Both events will start at 6pm and you'll find more details at btdigger.org. I'd also like to mention that BT Digger is a nonprofit news organization powered by our contributing members. We could not host events like this or cover Vermont elections as closely as we do without your support. And we have just one day left in our fall member tribe. And right now a generous donor is matching all gifts dollar for dollar through the end of the drive. So please, if you are able, visit btdigger.org slash donate and help us continue this work. Next, I'd like to briefly outline the format and rules of this debate. We'll start by asking the candidates to deliver brief introductory remarks focused on a question we've provided ahead of time. We'll then turn to questions our moderators will pose to all three candidates, or in some cases to just one candidates will generally have 90 seconds to respond. The moderators may pose brief follow up questions or at their discretion allow an opposing candidate to respond will generally allow those named by their opponents to respond. Those responses will be limited to 30 seconds and twice during this debate will allow each of the candidates to pose a question to another candidate of their choosing. And finally, we expect to end the evening with a lightning round during which candidates will answer questions in just a few words. And after that we'll hear brief closing statements. And now the pleasure of introducing our candidates and moderators joining us tonight are three nominees for the US House seat being vacated by Representative Peter Welch. Democratic nominee Beckett Ballant of Brattle borough has represented Wyndham County, the Vermont Senate since 2014, and has served as President protein for a for the past two legislative sessions. Republican nominee Liam Madden is a Marine Corps veteran and former leader of Iraq veterans against the war. He works in the solar energy industry and lives in bellows falls and libertarian nominee Eric eredic is an accountant and online content creator based in Burlington. And finally, let me introduce our moderators tonight. BT digger political reporter, Lola DeFort and managing editor Paul. Lola, take it away. All right, thank you. We will begin this evening with an introductory question. You all bring a range of experience to your bids for office. What position have you held that best prepares you to be Vermont's next member of Congress, you'll have 60 seconds to respond. Senator Ballant you get to go first. Thank you, Lola. So good evening, everyone. I'm a mom, I'm a longtime teacher, but I'm also the leader of the Vermont Senate, and I think my work in the legislature absolutely prepares me for the work ahead of us. This election is really about who is going to be able to fight for Vermonters in an effective way. So we've got abortion rights on the ballot. We have important investments that need to be made in housing and in climate action, and a minimum wage increases and this is work that I have done in the Senate I haven't just stood up for those issues and been a champion on those issues I've been able to work across the aisle and within coalitions within the state Senate to pass meaningful legislation to impact the lives of Vermonters. And so why I became a teacher as well was to make sure that I was making life better for people and that's why I went to public service, and I feel like these two jobs in particular, prepare me for the work ahead. I know that I can do the work in Congress because I've done the work in the Senate here in Vermont, and I look forward to serving Vermont in that capacity. All right, thank you. Next up, we'll let Mr Madden talk. Hello Vermonters. My name is Liam Madden. I am a Marine Corps veteran who became the leader of the nation's largest anti war organization of Iraq veterans. I am also a renewable energy professional who co one MIT solve award for business models addressing climate change. I'm an independent. I believe both sides of the political spectrum have values that are needed for a healthy society. I'm seeking to represent Vermont because I believe there are challenges we face that our current tools are inadequate to deal with. With the right priorities and the right attitudes about working together that the right and the right reforms to our political process. We can rise to these challenges and more we can create a beautiful and thriving and just world. The life experience that I have that best prepares me to represent Vermont is my time leading other anti war military personnel and veterans because it shows that when a sacred value must be upheld that I am willing to sacrifice my own self interest. And the only way that we can trust that a leader will have the courage to do what is right in the face of whatever the current bandwagon is, is if they have demonstrated that living in truth is more important than even their own life. All right, thank you, miss Redick. I am very grateful for this question, because I can honestly say that, while my business experience my 20 years of helping small businesses is absolutely of paramount importance, given the recession that we're facing the record deficits and all of those things. What I actually think prepares me the most for this position is my time working with people in recovery. I celebrated 13 years in sobriety this year and I have worked with hundreds of other women and people to get sober stay sober. And part of that is not just the getting off of the drugs it's putting your life back together it's picking up the pieces. I have a demonstrated history of picking up where people think that that it should be the end. I have been able to put my life back together and help other people put their lives back together in an estate where we have some of the highest drug abuse in the country where we're seeing record overdose deaths in this nation. What we need is people with practical real world experiences to address the problems that we face. Thank you. We will now turn to our first question of the night, and we will stay on a topic that you were just discussing miss Redick. Vermont set state records for opioid overdose deaths in both 2020 and 2021 public health officials have linked the surge and substance use in part to the isolation and economic shocks of the COVID-19 pandemic. We're still dying at elevated rates even now. Congress plays a major role in funding recovery and prevention programs. Where would you focus resources to address the overdose, the overdose crisis, we'll start with you Mr Madame. So this is a pretty near and dear subject to me it's pretty painful actually my brother died earlier this year from his opioid addiction, which was set off through prescribed use of the so called non addictive painkillers. I think almost every family in Vermont has been affected by something similar, and most everyone has probably also heard of this famous experiment related to the subject by Canadian scientists named Alexander Bruce who found that animals with access to really addictive substances would starve themselves to death because they couldn't break the grip of the impulse to feed their addiction. What people don't hear about that experiment is that there was a control group of animals, and that they had the same access to addictive substances but they also had healthy social and physical environments, so called rat parks and these animals didn't become addicted. And I'm not saying my brother is exempt from personal responsibility for the way his life turned out but we can't understand his life, or really anything absent context and the context of the opioid epidemic is that the physical and social environments we live in are no longer providing protection from despair and lack of purpose that fuels addiction and I'd like to approach our response to this crisis, not only by providing federal support for long term rehab facilities and the kind of services that support organizations like Jenna's promise and Johnson are providing to people once they leave rehab. I just think bigger and further upstream and instill into our education system the kind of experiences, the kinds of rights of passage that ground people's lives in purpose and connection because the best way to deal and prevent addiction is, is with connection and purpose. Thank you Mr Madden. Ms retic. Where would you focus federal resources to address the overdose crisis. Well the main place that we need to make sure we're focusing federal resources is our southern border. My nephew is a Border Patrol agent in South Texas and has been for several years and and I've known about this crisis since long before 2016. When we're talking about federal resources what we really need to be doing is securing our southern border.  And when you have to have 40 grams of that to be prosecuted as a trafficker. I mean that's literally that's enough to kill 20,000 people before you even have the ability to put someone away for five years for that. So we need to change sentencing requirements and limits number one, we need to make sure that those who are trafficking drugs across our southern border are prosecuted and put in jail. We need to make sure that our law enforcement is well funded and has the resources that they need because people are literally dying because of this administration's treatment of the southern border. We've got organizations like Jenna's promise in Johnson, we've got, we've got sober houses that are overrun with people they cannot help anymore the opioid crisis in Vermont has been going on for decades it's time to stop. Thank you, Senator ballon. Now to you. I just want to start by saying Liam, I'm, I'm very sorry to hear that. I'm sure that's absolutely devastating and your candor is something that I know so many Vermonters will identify with it is, as you said, it is touching every community it's, it's basically touching every school that I talked to, and I just want to start by saying I'm really sorry. We have to invest a lot of our resources both at the federal and at the state level in harm reduction first. And my, my colleagues here on the zoom have all talked about the incredible work done at Jenna. Excuse me at Jenna's promise, and it really is a model for how communities can really speak to the issue that that Liam also talked about with connection is a very big part of this but we don't have enough attention put even here in Vermont on harm reduction we passed a long time ago in the state senate last year, making it easier for people to get access to syringe services. And again, we know that is something that reduces harm that always should be our focus so putting effort into making sure we have more counselors and a big shortage nationally in here in Vermont of people who can help with with treatment. I also want to say we need to understand that the amount of time that we give people to go through rehab is not enough time, and I've heard this time and time again from from people in the field, relapse is a part of recovery in the same way that I'm an asthmatic, and I will relapse again and that doesn't mean there's something wrong with me, but harm reduction first that has to be our focus. Thank you, John. Our next question comes from bud Haas of Bradford. He writes, 72 US House Democrats said last Friday that they oppose including legislation to change federal energy permitting laws in a funding bill to keep the government running at the end of September. The federal mansion's proposal, which Senator Chuck Schumer privately included in government funding legislation requires the completion of a gas pipeline and would modify the Clean Water Act by setting time limits on environmental lawsuits and set time limits on how long environmental reviews for large industrial projects can take. Representative Peter Welch, whose seat you're running for was not one of the 72 House Democrats to sign the letter opposing the deal, but Senator Bernie Sanders has spoken out against the deal with you as Vermont's House member oppose the government funding bill, if it included the mansion proposal, and we'll start with you Yes, I was watching this news myself, and I, I would have signed on to that letter, along with folks like Pramila Jayapal and Jamie Raskin I think we'd be heading in the wrong direction to enable this permit reform and make it easier for us to build pipelines for more fossil fuels that we're heading in the wrong direction we should be doing everything that we can to reduce our use and yes I would have signed on to the letter. Ms. Reddick, would you as Vermont's House member oppose the government funding bill if it included the mansion proposal. I have not read the specific bill. So it's hard for me to say, or the letter so I, I'm not going to say whether or not I would or would not sign off on it because I like to do research first and and so that is something I will promise to Vermonters. What I want to say is that energy independence absolutely has to be a priority this year. We're seeing what it looks like when we're dependent on countries that hate us for energy.  And so I just I can't fathom after the government has shut down our businesses for two years as businesses are struggling to come back people are still struggling financially. We've got a war across the ocean that is primarily around energy, and the idea that anyone in elected office would then say, you know what we're actually going to make it even more expensive and Vermonters, even though we have one of the highest costs of living in this country, I'm committed to making it even more expensive to live here. I think that is, I think that is leadership disqualifying and and should, and that person does not seem to actually care about the hardship that Vermonters are suffering right now. And we'll come to you in just a second but I want to give Senator Ballant a chance to respond to that. I presume that she is the person who you are referring to just now as rhetoric so go ahead you've got 30 seconds to respond center ballot. I appreciate that. You know I, I would say that the way that my statements have been characterized are misleading what I have said is that we need to end fossil fuel subsidies. Absolutely. We also need to tax the corporations that are benefiting from the windfall profits on fossil fuels. And it is my sincere hope that in that the rest of this debate that we won't mischaracterize what what we've each said, it is very important to me that we at this time of rising deal with the fact that there are people getting incredibly wealthy off of regular Vermonters and fuel costs. So mad, we're going to go to you now to answer the question which is that if you were Vermont's House member, would you oppose the government funding bill if it included the mansion side deal. I haven't read this proposal so I'd like to read that before I get a chance to give you an honest answer but I think time limits on environmental reviews make sense but it matters how long those time limits are. But on the subject of what I think really the underlying issue is which is climate. I think we need to do some math and the amount of carbon in the atmosphere that people are right to be concerned about can be measured, and that is 106 gigatons which I'm sure means nothing to most people, but if we create a picture in our mind, probably help picture a diamond that's made of carbon right floating in the sky the size of a football stadium. And now if you imagine 10,000 of them that's how much carbon needs to be removed from the atmosphere to reduce the potential for problems. In our climate that are human cause so what's important to realize is that there's 13,000 of those stadiums that have been in the atmosphere, which is 30% more than we even need to remove that were put there from tilling and disrupting the soil. And the good news is that with the right farming practices all those diamonds can be returned to the soil. And that's why the word sustainability means much more to me than just carbon dioxide regulation it means first and foremost, creating a thriving regenerative farms and farm families and restoring life to the oceans the soils the forest the rivers and transitioning to new energy systems so that is a little bit of how I approach this concept of protecting our water and and dealing with energy resources. Thank you one more quick follow up question on this subject for center ballot based on your answer center mansions proposal was part of a deal that led the passage of the inflation reduction act, which included a historic amount of funding to fight climate change. So just to clarify you to pose this measure, even if it meant going back on that deal that made that climate funding possible. No, no, I want I appreciate the clarification. When you are leadership you don't know all of the moving parts, but we are so lucky that they were able to get this 369 billion dollar climate package package through so I would not want to jeopardize that I do not. This is the right path for Senator Schumer to take with Senator mansion, and I think it is in the wrong direction but I certainly am pleased that the IRA was signed into law by President Biden it's the most significant climate action that we've had in over 25 years. I think this is here because I think your first answer suggested that you would oppose the mansion side deal, and your second answer suggested that you would honor it because it was part of this broader package, which which one is it. As you know, with any answer on a debate. Whether I would have signed on to the letter, and I would have signed on to the letter, do I think it is good that the IRA was passed into law, I do think it is that we were in a much better place than we were a few weeks ago. I don't think that one person Senator mansion should constantly be holding up progress for the rest of the Senate. I will move on Lola. So our next set of questions concerns abortion access Republican several Republican lawmakers have said they would consider passing a nationwide abortion ban. Should they win back the majority of Congress, and earlier this week, Senator Lindsey Graham proposed just that a bill that would ban abortion nationwide. Ms. Reddick and BT diggers Republican primary US House debate in June. You said you would not support a federal abortion ban, saying that the issue should be left to the states. Is this still your position. Yes, it is. It is still my position. I think that the reality of the circumstance that we're in right now is that there are literally hundreds of thousands over a million women every year in the United States, who find themselves in a position of being pregnant and being born and raised in Vermont, where you just get taught because our culture here is such that if you get pregnant out of wedlock and you and your boyfriend is not going to whatever then you just get an abortion. And that's just what you do. And so that's what I thought I was supposed to do. And now that I'm older. I actually can't have children. And so now I'm going to miss out on the opportunity of motherhood because I didn't know that there was an organization out there that could help me not only with my medical care and supplies, but giving me parent coaching giving the father parent coaching and helping us work together as a family. And that's why I support organizations like Aspire Now that help women in crisis pregnancy to know that they can choose life that they can keep that child. And so what I want to see in a place like Vermont, where we give over a million dollars to abortion clinics, like a million and a half dollars to abortion clinics and zero dollars to pregnancy resource centers. What I would love to see is, is personally for our state to reject article 22 to say that abortion up to nine months is not okay. 85% of us agree or 85% of Americans agree first trimester abortions are you sorry you're out of time. Oh, I'm sorry Paul I didn't see your red card. Thank you. We'll go to Mr Madden at that same June debate you said you would support compromise abortion legislation based on fetal viability. Please describe what a suitable compromise piece of abortion legislation would mean to you. Sure. Eric I'm so sorry that happened to you that's that's heartbreaking. I'd like to start with some areas of agreement. I agree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg that access to abortion is central to a woman's dignity I agree with Justice Ginsburg that this issue is better decided by legislation and by course and I agree that the constitutional grounds for protecting abortion is better rooted protection clause, rather than the Roe versus Wade privacy rights argument, but where I agree with Becca is that I think we agree that 99% of abortions happen before a fetus is independently viable. And those should be protected choices and we agree that the majority of all abortions after that are likely due to the health of the mother being in jeopardy or the fetus being incompatible with life. So, I think we would agree that if we were to allow states to prevent late some states that wanted to prevent late term abortions, excluding the ones that I just mentioned we would be only preventing an extremely rare instance of elective abortion in the last term which is probably like less than one in a thousand. And where we disagree is that I believe it is relevant when a child can live independently of the mother, and that provides a moral and legal complexity that deserves attention. And even if elective late term abortions are rare, we provide regulation around all sorts of other rare occurrences when they're ethically relevant so this week. Senator Ballant sent a text message to thousands of Vermonters saying that she she needed money because her opponent is anti choice and at first, I was kind of angry about this because I thought it was misleading to say that someone who believes in a constitutional amendment protecting 99% of the choices is not anti choice, but I'm thinking about it more and I'm realizing that I don't think you actually see that there's nuance here Becca and I'm so happy to be a voice for the middle 80% of Vermonters who want a voice in this discussion. Senator Ballant, do you want a quick follow up? 70% of Vermonters support protecting a woman's right to control her own body. Protect a Vermonters autonomy and your ability to make decisions about your future and your body and any decision that should be made around healthcare should be made between a Vermonter and their healthcare provider and their doctor. And it is not the state's role, it's not the government's role to interfere with that relationship between a Vermonter and their healthcare provider. So, I strongly believe that we need to codify Roe federally, I supported the codification of Roe here in Vermont and Paul I'm sorry I see your card now. Well actually now it's your turn but the question we have for you is you've stated numerous times, obviously on the record that you support the right to an abortion. Should Republicans win back a majority in Congress and potentially control of the White House, what would you do to prevent a nationwide abortion ban? So I think we saw a lot of hope coming out of Kansas a few weeks ago when a lot of women who didn't necessarily feel activated to weigh in on politics in the past, saw that Roe v. Wade was on the ballot and their reproductive rights were on the ballot. So I just want to say I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the Democrats will lose the House. If they do lose the House, if we lose the House, the work ahead of us is to convince our Republican colleagues that they're on the wrong side here because so many of their constituents, regardless of whether they are Republicans or Democrats, a majority of Americans, regardless of party, it includes independence as well, support the ability for women to make these decisions for herself with her healthcare provider. All right. Thank you. Next, we'll move on. This spring, Congress did not reauthorize the billions needed to keep paying for free COVID-19 tests and vaccines and other facets of every state's emergency response. The bivalent booster shot just approved by the FDA is expected to be the last free one that Americans receive and money to distribute it, particularly to the most vulnerable, has already dried up. Public health critics of the CDC is new very stripped down masking and quarantine guidance sum up the agency's new pandemic ethos this way. You do you. Do you agree with the federal government's recent approach to pandemic management? Ms. Reddick will start with you.  We have seen over the course of the last couple of years, an absolute devastation of the middle class and folks on the lower end of the economic system. When we have our state government, our state legislature mandating vaccines, mandating masks, mandating at home schooling. I mean, I can't tell you the nightmares that I have heard from parents about how they were logging in for about 30 minutes a day with their kids and their teachers and that was it and that was here in Burlington. So we have seen an absolute devastation of our children and our young people by the decisions made by the state government here in Vermont and by the federal government. And I think the best thing that we can hope for is that they will just stop with these mandates. Senator just said that it's not the place of the government to get in the way of a person making decisions with their doctor and yet we see over and over again that the government is absolutely willing to get in the way of you and your decisions with your doctor. So I am grateful that the federal government is realizing that it does not have the place to do this. It does not have the place to control and harm our businesses. It does not have the place to harm our children anymore. Senator Ballant. It is concerning to me that the federal funds for distributing boosters is is is not as robust as we need to be to protect the most vulnerable. And, you know, my, my response to what I think is that I'm proud of the response that that Governor Scott in the legislature made in addressing the real need that Vermonters felt during the pandemic and we kept many, many thousands of people safe. And when you look at the rates of infection and when you look at people who are hospitalized and were killed by this, this terrible disease here in Vermont, we, we navigated it well. And as somebody who supported a lot of initiatives for small businesses during the pandemic, we also did a really robust job of working with small businesses to keep them open and you never get it quite right. And I can tell you in talking with my legislature colleagues in other states, they wished that they had had the kind of response in their state that we had here in Vermont. So I would like to see the government not sure gets responsibility around boosters. I know I was somebody that did catch catch COVID I was grateful that I had a booster and was able to get packs loaded and it meant that it was not a situation that that put me in the hospital so this is an ever changing pandemic and we need to respond to it as it as it continues to evolve. Mr Madden. So this crosses some important middle ground for me because I believe in universal health care. And so I believe that the government being able to fund people in need to get the medicine that they need or want. That should be there. On the other hand, on the issue of the pandemic response. Many of the world's leading academic epidemiologists agree that the way the public health authorities in the United States responded to COVID-19 was a contradiction to decades of pandemic preparedness best practices so we're talking about the leading scholars at Johns Hopkins and Harvard and Oxford and Stanford, calling for focused protection of the vulnerable as the most sensible the most cost effective way to reduce the effect of COVID and our lives and then they think that the idea of lockdowns and mandates and censorship and the stifling of the debate of scientific debates is just dangerous to society and they don't mean cost effective just on economic grounds they mean it in terms of access to children having education or all of us having access to other forms of health care civil liberties and constitutional rights so I think we need to measure our response across more than one narrow health outcome. But I, I strongly believe that if there's medicine people want or interventions people want that they should have access to, to them with the help of federal funding. Thank you Mr Madden we will now have an opportunity for candidates to ask questions of one another. Each candidate may ask one other candidate of their choosing one question. If you have questions and not speeches, you'll have 90 seconds to answer, and we may ask or allow follow up questions we'll do a second round of these later on tonight, but for now one question to one candidate per person. Mr Madden we will start with you. Sure, this one is for Becca, but Becca you and I both agree police officers who break the law should be held accountable. And as you know qualified immunity is the policy that allows police officers who did not break the law in the course of their service to be protected from people suing them for carrying out their jobs qualified immunity is given to a lot of public officials including you. And at a time of significant shortages of police officers throughout Vermont, why do you think subjecting law enforcement professionals to lawsuits for following the rules that are supposed to follow is a good way to prioritize public safety at a time when crime rates in Vermont cities are exploding. Appreciate the question Mr Madden is a lot tucked in there, first and foremost, I do not support defining the police that I never have and I think the two issues are actually quite different. The shortage of law enforcement officers here in Vermont both at the local level and through the Vermont State Police actually predates predates the pandemic predates this crisis in policing that we've had for the last few years we got a difficult time recruiting officers in Vermont. A lot of it is because of the compensation that we're able to offer here in Vermont and you talk to members of the Troopers Association will tell you that our surrounding states pay more it's very difficult to attract them. To your second point, qualified immunity and ending qualified immunity is important for us to look at it has been in place for half a century and never really been closely examined. I actually believe if a Vermonter has had their civil rights or their constitutional rights violated, they should have access to the courts. That's really what it's about it's about having access it's not determining fault and anyone who is in the course of their duty following the rules and regulations of their force have nothing to fear by us examining whether qualified immunity is working for all Vermonters. I think we will now turn to Ms. Reddick for your question, but you are muted muted. Thank you my question is for Liam. Liam you have repeatedly stated that you are not a Republican, and will govern as an independent if you get to DC. I'm curious if you're aware that you don't if you don't caucus with a party, you won't get a committee assignment and won't be an asset to Vermonters. My question to you is this. Do you want to tell Vermonters right now that you will not be that you will be an independent and provide Vermont no value in Congress, or since you're not a Republican that you like Becca Ballant will caucus with the Democrats. Since you're right, I have repeatedly said that I am an independent and I will caucus with either both parties cyclically, or neither party, and I did also say that if there is an extremely close house and that I was courted by both parties that I would, I would caucus not necessarily vote with but I would caucus with the party that would most seriously commit to my slate of political reforms. It's true that there is no power in someone being an independent I think that there could actually be a tremendous amount of leverage when both sides actually see you as someone that could be a useful vote, I can still submit legislation, and I can still vote. I can still build relationships so I think it is a misrepresentation of the facts to say that someone who is truly an independent would not be an asset to Vermont I think it's quite the opposite. May I ask a follow up. Sure. So, so you, I just want to be clear that you believe that that the Democrat and Republican leadership in Congress will want someone who is going to just flip flop back and forth, and not be committed to them or to a cause or to you or to one thing in particular. So even though you won't be on a committee at you think that leadership is going to be okay with you just moving around. I don't really care what the leadership of the Republican and Democratic Party want. I know that they care about votes, and if they want a good relationship with me they'll probably see me as someone that is potentially a vote for either side on depending on what you do so I, I don't care what they want but I understand that they want votes and that that gives me some leverage at least. Okay, and so you're okay with not being on a committee where you can have a say, and build tenure. First of all I believe in term limits. So I don't think that I'm trying to build tenure for the long haul like Patrick lay here or Peter Welch, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that I am not on a committee I think that there's, there's leverage that can apply to leadership. If you're an independent you actually can sway certain votes because I'm not a given a party line voter on either side so I think it's, it's a mistake for you to assume that I would not have a committee assignment. All right, we'll move on and Senator Ballant is now your turn to ask another candidate a question. Thank you. This is a question for Liam Madden. Liam in in a recent interview, you, you talked about sort of your sense of what kind of gun control measures could could be used locally by these sort of local authorities that distribute guns and I'm wondering, when you look ahead to the the federal level, what are some concrete steps that you will take at the federal level to try to address the issue of gun violence. Thank you Becca. Yes, I believe that the gun violence epidemic in our society is a serious problem and that's both sides need to find a new middle ground, where actual conversation can happen and we're not just stuck in dogma. We're not just stuck on with many liberals that background checks and red flag laws are good policy, I think red flag laws would need due process to be really prompt afterwards. But I don't think they're actually going to do that much, which is the problem. And I agree with conservatives in opposing federal assault weapons bands. I think that gun control is needs to be addressed with the new middle ground and also by thinking about what is caused the epidemic of gun violence, if gun access has been the same throughout. We need to look at the overarching crises in mental health in a culture and a social fabric that is deteriorating. And a society that glorifies violence, I think these issues are part of the solution, while also considering the the middle ground that I'm trying to propose with localizing accountability for firearms. Thank you. We'll move on to our next section, Lola take it away. All right, thank you very much. Senator balance. One in five Americans report having traded cryptocurrency and poll suggest that crypto trading is more common among younger adults, men and people of color. The kids meanwhile side data from the Federal Trade Commission showing that $1 billion has been lost to crypto, just from January 2021 to March 2022 alone. The industry has spent tens of billions of dollars influence the debate over regulation of the sector and it has made what it wants very clear for the commodity futures trading commission to oversee it, not the much larger and more aggressive companies and exchange commission whose leader has not been shy about initiating enforcement actions against the sector. Senator balance. How do you think Congress should regulate cryptocurrency. So I appreciate the question Lola and I will say right right at the top that I am by no means an expert on cryptocurrency I know I know very little. I'm basically based in the issue of blockchain that we did work on in the legislature in terms of being able to secure documents through the blockchain. I have strong concerns about cryptocurrency, I am look I have spent some time living in El Salvador and recently learned that El Salvador has decided to use cryptocurrency as they have invested heavily in cryptocurrency for their country and it has put them at financial risk. So, I think we need more regulation of the industry I think it is the danger that I see is that so many Americans, like myself, do not fully understand it and I want to make sure whatever the Senate or house is overseeing the investigations they need to be well schooled in what the use of the blockchain is and how this comes into play but this is an area where I have to do a lot more research and understanding for myself but I feel like just given the fact that there's so much we don't understand it should be it should be strongly regulated. Do you think that the SEC should be in charge of regulating it or do you believe the CFTC that commodity futures trading commission as the industry has argued is the most appropriate federal agency. I don't think in this instance we should follow the, the guidance of the industry. I think we want to really have a strict investigation of what this really means for our economy. As you now know, an executive employed by FD set FTX that cryptocurrency exchange invested a million dollars in pro ballot ads during your primary race, a historic sum of money in Vermont for single candidate. His boss Sam bankman freed has been a leading voice in Congress advocating for the industry's preferred regulatory scheme. During your campaign you copied and pasted bankman's free talking points on pandemic preparedness to your website. How can Vermonters trust you to think for yourself. Thank you Lola. So, I want to really assure Vermonters that I had absolutely no knowledge of who was donating money to the victory fund which is an LGBTQ organization. I did not want that investment in my campaign I had no control over it. And the things I did have control over was how I ran my campaign which was with many many small dollar donors and the most Vermont donors of any of the candidates. That's what I can control that is how I ran my campaign. I make my decisions based on what I think is right for Vermonters that's how I've done my work here in the Vermont State Senate on so many issues. That's what I will do in Congress, and my support of pandemic preparedness should not be at all. I'm not conflated with issues around cryptocurrency. I don't know the donor I have made, I've had no communication with the donor about cryptocurrency and, as I said it needs to have robust oversight. All right. Mr Madden, how do you think Congress should regulate cryptocurrency. I want to applaud Becca for the humility to say hey I don't know a lot about this so let's do some more research and I think that's refreshing for political candidates to say the spirit of inquiry the spirit of wanting to hear and listen is really important. I also don't know a lot about cryptocurrency and would need to learn a lot. I also have a lot in my website about how people who don't know a lot about stuff probably shouldn't have all the much power regulating it play does it something about that. So, that's, there's some reforms around that that that people can learn about my website. The blockchain technology is also a total assets to humanity I think it'd be used to secure elections better I think it could be used to help prevent all sorts of government corruption if you had government contractors that kind of transparency where you see where they're getting their funding where they're spending their funding, it would make it much more difficult to do the naked corruption of the last several decades so I think that's important. And one thing I just wanted to comment on that issue of the cryptocurrency donation linked donation to Becca's campaign the problem to me isn't that and I take her at her word that she didn't know these people that remember a Vermont Digger debate early in the primary where she says she wouldn't seek the support of lobbyists and so I wonder how that squares with meeting with that fund in the first place. Senator Ballant if you'd like to respond. The issue of the pandemic readiness group. Is that what you're saying Liam.  They were discussing something that was of the utmost importance to me which is preventing future pandemics, and I have support of the American Federation of teachers and the NEA, there are groups that are fighting on behalf of issues that I care deeply about that I'm going to meet with and if our values are aligned, I will accept contributions. So why did you say that you wouldn't seek their support. I was talking about individual lobbyists that had no ties to issues that I was working on behalf of like American Federation of teachers the NEA the pipe fitters. So forth, I received money from groups that I have. I'm in alignment with on on a whole host of policies. Okay, I think we'll move on and give Miss Redick a chance to weigh in. What do you think about how Congress should regulate the cryptocurrency industry. Well I think the first thing to note is that the point of cryptocurrency is for it to not be part of the government. I don't think that we should be looking to regulate it at all, although my understanding is the President has issued some executive order regarding cryptocurrency. So I don't think that's a good thing to be frank. I think that we should not do that. I would like to say though I think it's really interesting given the conversation that a lobbyist is only a lobbyist when we agree with them. And I think that that's really part of the issue in this campaign is that is that the grass roots voices of Vermonters are being drowned out by special interest groups and lobbyists pouring tons and tons of money into one side of this campaign. And so, and, and when that money means that other people don't get into debates, it means they don't get included in conversations it means the press doesn't take them seriously it's very clear that this election was bought and paid by lobbyists and special interest groups. And I think that that's really too bad, because the voice of working class Vermonters is really being excluded in many ways from this campaign. Thank you. We will now move on to the next question. Ukraine has recaptured more than 1000 square miles of territory over the past week, driving Russia out of large swaths of the Northeast. US has played an important role in bolstering Ukrainian government and people investing more than $14 billion in security assistance this year alone. What more or less should the US do to support Ukraine as it braces for potentially years of war with Russia, and Mr Madden will go to you first. Thank you for the question. I, I think that the United States should not be further evolved in supporting the Ukrainian military efforts. The US priorities should be in using all of our diplomatic and economic and soft power leverage to bring both sides to the negotiating table as fast as possible. The, the risk of either a spiraling escalation, or a long protracted war is is very real in this situation it might look like great news for the Ukrainian military this moment but the Russian army has a doctrine where they escalate to deescalate where they use tactical nuclear weapons to scare opponents into thinking oh we shouldn't, you know, shouldn't arouse the madman right you know it's to be a psychopath to get people to not want to pursue while you're weak. This is a real risk of either escalation spiraling out of control or a long protracted conflict and I think the United States government really needs to put our leverage on negotiating and think about the context that created this mess where the United States really helped to drive this situation to the inevitable conclusion of the Russian response that I think anybody the followed the foreign policy around this was expecting. Thank you, Senator Ballant what more or less should the US do to support Ukraine. So I do think that we had some very good news out of Ukraine a few days ago, and it's very heartening to see the Ukrainians able to recapture lots of territory. However, I agree with Liam that it is not a foregone conclusion that Ukraine will continue to be successful. The main role that we have right now I think is to really step up our efforts at diplomacy. I think we should continue the aid that we've been giving them which has allowed them to fight back. And I feel like this is not just about Ukraine this is about democracy in Europe. We've seen the rise of fascist tendencies in Hungary with Victor Orban with Bolsonaro and Brazil and Modi and India so it is, it is serious. And we have to seriously be engaged on is fighting on a price but I think we need to rebuild our diplomatic core was decimated under the last president and we need to use a real forward facing approach to being a peace broker between these two, these two countries because I do fear we're going to be in another situation like Russia and Afghanistan if we don't make some some gains on the diplomatic front. I would say the less we should do the better. I think it's unconscionable. Again, that at a time of record deficits, record inflation, Americans suffering that that the Biden administration, it's well more than $14 billion. So that number was I think, many months ago, but billions of dollars to this country to protect their borders number one when we're not protecting our own. So we have this long history of sending our boys and girls into war zones without number one without Congress actually declaring war. So the administration is just sending our troops to fight and die without an act of Congress which they are doing, which is wrong. But we're helping the Saudis fight people in Yemen were helping somebody else fight people in Syria, we're in, I think it's over 100 countries around the world, putting our fingers in picking winners and losers and we've seen what happens when we do that. We've seen the devastation in Iraq, we just, we just had an embarrassing withdrawal from Afghanistan where 13 of our Marines were killed, and we left billions of dollars worth of weapons for them to fight us in the future. The United States absolutely must stop being the world police and going into debt to do it. A quick follow up question for Senator Ballant at our April debate you indicated that you would be willing to send us troops in if the Russians use chemical weapons in Ukraine do you still stand by that position. It would have to be done in coordination with NATO, I would not support the United States going it alone. Thank you. May I ask a question. No, but you could answer a question. Okay. I just, I'm really surprised that anyone would say I, when people suggest that American boots go on the ground in a conflict between Europe, or between Ukraine and Russia. I am always very curious if they understand that that will initiate likely initiate World War three given NATO rules. And so it. I would like the if the Senator would further comment whether she understands that is the consequence of United States engagement. Senator, would you like to respond to that. I wouldn't. All right, well then we will move on. And this question is back to you though Senator Ballant, you've called for the end of Israel's quote occupation of Palestinian land and for Palestinian statehood. You've also criticized the so called BDS movement, which seeks to boycott divest from and sanction Israel, calling it quote painful to watch. How do you think the US can realistically move Israelis and Palestinians toward a two state solution after decades of failing in that effort. Yeah, I'll be, I'll be really honest with you Paul this is, this is a really challenging issue there are no easy answers here and what we haven't seen yet from from this administration is a real focus on Israel and again being a peace broker in this area. I think the, the actions of the Trump administration did, did set us back in the region and everything that we do within the, the Middle East, I think has to be seen within this prism of allowing for a two state solution and I feel like this has not this has some of the attention of the government here in the United States but it's still something that so many Vermonters talked to me about when they talk about Israel they want us to get back on track to be working towards a two state solution. Is ready do you believe in a two state solution and if so how would you seek to achieve it. I do not believe in a two state solution. I believe that if you look at history and the circumstances after World War two that land was set aside for the Israelis it is their historic homeland. They were there first and I mean that is that is just the reality and as a united world, we decided to make that so, and I believe that we need to continue to honor that. I think that I don't understand the comment that Trump set us back in the Middle East we had record peace deals in the Middle East record peace deals with Israel I think like for at least with Middle Eastern countries who see the rise of Iran's power and they are understandably concerned that it is not a good thing. But actually Middle Eastern countries working together coming together with Israel to sign peace agreements. That is amazing that in in decades that never happened that's a miracle that we should all be grateful for. And to be frank, Israel has tried over and over again and offered to give over more and more land. And at one point I believe at least in the 80s and 90s maybe twice is even offered a two state solution, and it was rejected. Because the Palestinians said if Israel is not gone. There is no peace. Thank you, Mr Madden to state solution. If that's what the Israelis and Palestinians agree to then I'm, I'm fine with that I don't consider in the what isn't my concern as long as there is, there is a resolution that leads to peace. So how they get I guess the how isn't my concern. I think that the Israeli government has flouted the when human rights issues, more than any other country in the United States was the only one that supported Israel and dozens of sanction movements or admonishments and I think that's really unfortunate. I think it sends a message that the Israeli government can have basically a carte blanche support, no matter how they treat these Palestinian people and I think we need to have a little bit more distance between the United States and not the same country, lots of politicians talk about like the are our interests are exactly overlapping in United, and I think that's insane I don't know if anybody has ever heard of the USS Liberty but it was a US military ship that was sunk by Israeli planes in the 1960s I think it's very wise of us to think of Israel as an important player, a potential ally but not a Siamese twin of the United States. Quick thought question for you Mr man if I could. Do you support the boycott divest sanction movement. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for our next question here. Senator Ballant as VT digger reported earlier this week, your office received a message in February from a person raising allegations of sexual misconduct against the top Vermont guards soldier. On this note, share the names and contact information of a dozen people who purportedly had knowledge of the alleged abuse. Yet you've conceded that you took no concrete action to address the allegations at that time. Why not. I want to be clear, Paul that we took the actions that we felt like we could from our office and so let me just say up front. The allegation of harassment of sexual assault and by any employer in Vermont is is devastating for anyone in that in that workplace. And we were very concerned when that came into our office. The other thing that we did was reach out to the people that we reach out to when we get something like that which is our legislative council we sat down with our attorneys and said, What, what do we do with this, it's an anonymous. Allegation we're very concerned about this, and they said you your choices are limited. And we did what we thought was the right thing to do which was to go to the committees of jurisdiction in the house because we knew they were conducting hearings on the guard, and met with the chair, who then took that information into the hearing. And I know that there are need to be changes in terms of oversight. In terms of my own actions coming from my office the one thing I wish that I had done, which what would be to put it on the desk of the governor who is the commander in chief but we don't have investigatory resources or authority and the folks who were listed in the letter had not given consent for their names to be listed. And so we did what we felt were the right steps to protect this person within the confines of the resources that we had at our disposal that the legislature does not have broad authority over the guard. So the legislature does not have broad authority over the guard but three months later in July or more months than that. You did and your office did end up passing along this message to the guard but only after the guard itself and put out a press release indicating that it was conducting some sort of an investigation. So I think the question is, why did you not do that earlier in February when you first received this letter. Well, we take these allegations very seriously, I take them very seriously. The very first thing that we did was to follow what we felt were the proper steps, meeting with our attorney to find out what were the choices available to us, we went to the committee of jurisdiction, who has the ability to question the guard in committee. And so that happened immediately. So I just take. That was clarified that happened immediately. Well to clarify did the committee actually conduct oversight at that time. The committee was conducting hearings, the week following. And so we knew that that was coming so we handed it off to the chair of the committee that was going to be reviewing the report of the guard. So we did what we felt like we had within our authority, which is why we need to change the system there has to be more oversight both for removing an adjutant general not saying it needs to be this adjutant general but we have no mechanism to really have an outside authority review the report from the guard. There are specific issues in play here that I'm hoping the legislature in January will take up in earnest. Do you have confidence in this adjutant general and so far is I have the ability to assess his job from the reports that we get. I do, but again, I have a very limited knowledge. This falls under the purview of the governor, who is the one who, who, you know, is the commander in chief over the armed forces in Vermont. Mr Madden you serve in the Marine Corps do you believe sexual misconduct in the military is an issue that needs to be addressed and if so what would you do about it. Oh, absolutely it needs to be addressed it's a it's a huge issue. It's I don't know the stat off the top of my head but it was staggering how much of a problem it was. I think the culture of the military needs to have mechanisms in place where people feel safe reporting these kinds of issues to outside of their command that's that's really the showstopper is that the chain of command is considered this really sacred means to bypass that is considered sacrilege and really the only way to get protection if you're concerned about your chain of command. Having, you know, being the source of these problems is to be able to safely have mechanisms to reach outside of your chain of command to report these issues. What would you do to ensure the military addresses sexual misconduct in its ranks. Well, one of the big challenges is the fact that the United States military and particularly it's, it's mechanism for dealing with crimes of any kind is completely outside of the jurisdiction of the United States government. I'm trying to remember the exact name the acronym is stuck in my head but it's the uniform code. And it's I'm blanking on it exactly but basically, if you do anything wrong you are charged tried, and, and maybe locked up, and the rules and ethics do not follow the same jurisprudence as the United States and I think that that's a problem I think is why there's so, I mean, you have veterans who, you know, as an example, on this stage of veterans who were, you know, protesting certain wars and if they do that if they speak out against it they lose their military benefits. So you can lose your military benefits and your pensions and everything for showing up to work late. And so I think that there should probably be some more civilian oversight of the of the military's judicial system and process and that way we don't have these circumstances where it's all just covered and kept under wraps more transparency. Thank you, Lola. Thank you. The rules of Vermont small and medium sized dairy operations in recent decades have been well documented. At the same time we've learned more about the role that phosphorus run off from farms has played in polluting from polluting Vermont's rivers and lakes. What more should Congress do, if anything, to support the dairy industry, and what role can Congress play in ensuring that agriculture does not degrade water quality. I want to start with you. I love this question, especially because we have so many friends and family and supporters who are farmers. The one word a couple words that really need to be in the minds of every American is sustainability and regeneration. So when we talk about some of these outfits having, you know, cause causing pollution and creating problems, many of them are actually these large corporate conglomerates that receive massive subsidies from the federal government. There's a real problem and I've said I feel like a broken record a little bit in here. When I keep having to say that when the federal government picks winners and losers and gets in the way of people just being able to grow food and run their business, then then we start to have problems. So, and it was in fact the federal government who for decades, literally shipped phosphorus up here on trains and trucks, and told our farmers to pour this phosphorus all over their land. So a lot of the problems that we're having now are our result of federal, the federal government and federal policies so when, when we see that the federal government is creating our problems and then we go back to them and ask them for a solution. Really, the only solution is that they need to just kind of cut cut it out. We need to get the federal government out of it. We need to let farmers be farmers. We need to make sure that they have what they need for themselves to be successful. All right, Mr Madden you get to go next. I'm reminded of that famous FDR quote that says, a nation that destroys its soil destroys itself. I think this is an incredibly important issue and I don't know anything about dairy farming. Let's must be honest so I really need to take a step back and just view this as agriculture as a whole which I know a little bit more about. I think it's important that Vermont continues to have dairy farms, but I think it's more important that we just use our land for regenerative agriculture and dairy can be that. But it doesn't necessarily need to be that there there might be other ways to transition that land to other forms of regenerative agriculture that match our ecosystem better match the resources and skill sets we have better. So I'm not necessarily wedded to dairy but I think it's, you know, something that fits into a regenerative agriculture paradigm and I do support Vermont dairy farmers. David Suzuki famous environmentalist says if we pollute the air water and soil that keeps us alive and destroy the biodiversity that allows natural systems to function and no amount of money will save us so we do need to pay a lot of attention to how we're affecting our water how we're growing our soils. But we can't really talk about sustainability without this elephant in the room that I just need to bring up even though it's not that related to dairy farming which is that because our monetary system is based on interest bearing debt and interest forces us to don't have enough time. Basically, we have an economy that is based on a fairy tale idea of never ending growth on a planet of limited resources and things that don't stop growing are not very sustainable. I don't think about it so I just need to say that. Senator ballot. Oh, go ahead. The same question. Yes. Okay. Yes. Ag is a huge part of Vermont and who we are as Vermonters, and it is so important for us as we think about the, the dairy industry in the ag industry to think about what do farmers themselves need to have this be a viable livelihood going forward so I just want to at the top I want to say what I hear from farmers is the same thing I hear from from most Vermonters they need help with childcare they need help with loan forgiveness they need affordable housing they need childcare supports all of those things. Now we have an opportunity heading into the next legislative. This next congressional term because it is that every five years marker where the farm bill is going to be taken up. And I think where we have important work to do is where agriculture intersects with the environment and we really need somebody in Congress who's going to be thinking about both these things at once and yes, as Liam said farmers are on the front lines of dealing with making sure we have soil that can sequester carbon and can make sure it can mitigate runoff. You know practices that are that are healthy for the environment, but we also need a farm bill is that is going to actually serve us on our smaller farms here in Vermont it's really a bill designed for much larger agribusiness and really hoping to spend the next few months coming up to speed and if I am fortunate enough to represent Vermont try to make a farm bill that really works for our farms here in Vermont. All right. One more question digital surveillance technology including security camera footage and facial recognition software has advanced tremendously in recent years. Many police departments are now utilizing these technologies raising concerns about citizens right to privacy. As a member of Congress. Would you support law enforcement agencies use of digital surveillance and do you believe such such police surveillance should be regulated. Mr Madden will start with you. Wow. I get goosebumps thinking about there being that much surveillance and state power in in our private lives and I think there probably is a narrow place for this technology and law enforcement I'm wary of. I supported Bernie Sanders being the lone voice against the Patriot Act in 2001 2002. I think we really need to keep a very close eye on the government surveillance into our lives. There's a slippery slope of being able to not just know what we're doing but in the advent of. We talked about cryptocurrency that the whole idea of technology of monetary systems transitioning to central bank digital currencies to be able to know what the population is doing at any given time and stop them from functioning in society is not science fiction anymore so I would like to be very, very cautious and very skeptical of these technologies being deployed across the country. Senator Ballant you get to go next. Yes, I'm also feeling very skeptical and cautious about this did a fair amount of work in the state senate on protecting our personal information protecting our privacy. It is something that I'm very concerned about as a mom I have a 12 and 14 year old who are, you know, regularly doing their work online. And I think, you know, when we think about living in a surveillance society post Patriot Act, I think a lot of Americans are growing increasingly uncomfortable with the level of surveillance we have I can say on a personal level, you know having come from a family whose grandfather was killed in the Holocaust whenever I see this creeping sense of surveillance. It makes me very uncomfortable and I think we need to have really strict government oversight of this. And certainly where it intersects with law enforcement. We have seen the militarization of law enforcement. Since in earnest, since the Vietnam, the Vietnam war, and I think we need to take a really hard look on what it is that we're asking law enforcement to do and is it actually serving us. I'm sorry miss Frederick you were muted. Interesting that all three of us seem to agree on this one topic that's, that's pretty fascinating. All across the spectrum. I, I agree. I think Americans should all be very concerned about any government organization, no matter what name is behind it, having surveillance capabilities over its citizens. I am not for that I was not for the Patriot Act when it came out. I think that it is an absolute travesty what we're seeing the, the government has the ability to just take get your phone records, barely with a subpoena I don't know if they're making them show subpoenas anymore to Verizon and AT&T and all these companies. And so, you know, we want to be careful right we don't want to be the far extreme, where we get rid of qualified immunity and we defund the police and there's nothing there at all. But we also don't want to live in a surveillance state with a militarized police force I think I think either of those extremes are a problem. And at any American, every American should be deeply deeply concerned whenever the government wants to infringe and encroach further on your constitutional rights. Thank you very much. We will have time for one more round of questions from one candidate to another. And so please remember. No speeches can ask a question and we'll have 90 seconds for responses to each of them. Senator Ballant, you have the opportunity to ask a question of one of your rivals. This is a question for Liam Madden. Liam, what concrete steps, would you take to alleviate the issue of really alleviate the suffering caused by racism in this country. Most Americans understand that black people and native people have been dealt incredible injustice. And I am for rectifying that I am for paying the debt that is owed. I think it is just common sense that you can't liberate people from slavery and into economic subjugation and expect that to really turn out well and expect them to not really just return to some form of other subjugation. So that's never really been fully addressed in my in my opinion. And I'm for having an open conversation about reparations I'm for equity in schooling, I think the urban urban centers where property tax resources are just unavailable to make the children in those communities have a fair shot at success in this society. We need to have instead of 10% of federal funds going to education maybe up to 20 to help subsidize those school districts. I think that it needs to be also, you know, we need to look at police brutality. I'm against getting rid of qualified immunity I think, but I believe that law enforcement that are disproportionately intruding on the lives of people of color should be held accountable. We should find ways to fix that. Thank you. Okay, would you like to query one of your rivals. Yes, this one is for Miss Ballant. Earlier in this debate, Senator Ballant you said that you were proud of your COVID response of the state's COVID response. Now, with the data that is coming out we see that many, many children are behind developmentally, whether it's just educationally or developmentally all the kids with auditory issues. We've seen large percentages of businesses closing down people leaving. We have record numbers of homeless people homeless veterans because of, of all of the circumstances. And so I'm curious, given that the state's response created so much devastation to Vermonters. How can you say that you're proud of that response. I think the question Erica, if you recall, when the pandemic first hit. There are so much that we didn't know about the disease and what format would take. And I met with my legislative colleagues, then I was not President pro tem I was majority leader, we met together. They said, what will we do from this day forward to keep as many people safe and alive. As we possibly can, and that was a time when we were seeing incredible death rates coming out of Italy and the weeks leading up to the time when we shut down the, the Capitol building, thousands and thousands of Italian citizens were dying. We had a real concern, looking at what was happening across our country first in the state of Washington, and then in other pockets in New York. And so when you are in a position of leadership, you have to make decisions in real time. And the charge for all of us was to keep as many Vermonters alive as many Vermonters safe as we can, and figure out a way to continue keeping the schools open. Where their hardships along the way. Absolutely. I also was a mom at that time trying to get both my kids online learning, where we try to keep workers safe in hospitals and in in in schools. Absolutely. And I'm, I am proud of the work that we did to make sure we kept as many small businesses afloat as we possibly could. And we didn't have a single depth in any of our schools here in Vermont. Thank you, Mr. Madden you'll have the last question of the evening before I lighten around. Great. Becca this for you. It's a real short one but there might be a follow up. How was money created. Are you getting at monetary theory here Liam or are you talking about like the actual like cloth that we use to make money, the monetary theory part of it. Okay. Well, if you, if you believe in modern monetary theory, you believe that money can be created by producing more money on paper, right. And that is a theory of economy that many people adhere to. I find it an interesting one but I'm not sure what your question is getting at so I'm happy to blather on but I think sounds like there might be a follow up question looming so Mr. Madden would you like to take this the next step. So, yes, I think that the, let me put frame in this in the question. The incentive structures that I mentioned earlier about how the creation of money as it's done now incentivizes never ending growth. I'm interested to learn how you think that problem should be dealt with. I don't believe in never ending growth. I believe in a robust economy that takes care of working people. I am completely and totally aghast that the wealth inequality in this country is dating back to the gilded age. So, you know, it's a broad question and I'm not, I'm not quite sure how to answer it other than to say, I'm not an economist but I am a legislative leader who's worked really really hard to try to give families in Vermont and individual monitors protections from minimum wage increases to supports for housing to make it more affordable for them to live. Right on. Thank you, Becca. All right, we are going to move on to a lightning round. Each of you will have a chance to answer these questions but please do so in just a few words. Ideally, yes or no. Assuming your party has control of the chamber. Who would you support as house majority leader. Mr. Madden start with you. I don't have a party. I would vote for the person not not the party and I would probably vote against Nancy Pelosi, if the Republican wasn't Lord Voldemort. All right, Senator ballot. Well the question was about majority leader and not speaker. So, in any event my answer is the same. I'm sorry, we should have said speaker. Okay, okay, so there is right now, as we speak, a number of people who are interested in the job and what they're going to have to do is talk to everybody in the caucus about their qualifications it's not clear what will happen with the midterms but they're each going to make their case and I'm going to support the one who I feel is best prepared to carry on an agenda that's going to take care of working people. It's not clear how that's going to shake out. I second Liam's statement not Nancy Pelosi, as long as the Republicans not Lord Voldemort. I, there are a lot of really great House representatives right now and many of them are up for reelection so we're not even sure what our options are going to be to choose from. But I can assure you that it will be somebody who is strong on liberty and freedom. May I follow up briefly. Very briefly. I just think it's interesting that both my colleagues here have likened the speaker of the House to Lord Voldemort and I just want to be clear that this, I'm just trying to understand the comparison you're making and I think as one of the few women who's ever ascended to that position has been incredibly successful passing legislation I just didn't want that to go unnoticed. I think we both said that we would not pick Lance Nancy Pelosi, and we also wouldn't pick the Republican if it was Lord Voldemort, I think that was what we both said. Thank you for the clarification Erica. Great question. Thank you. All right. What is one issue or policy about which you disagree with your party leadership. Senator ballot and start with you. Senator ballot. Yeah, I'm thinking I'm sorry, I'm, I'm thinking there may be gradations. I, I'm going to have to I'm going to have to pause I can't I can't think of anything at this moment, but. All right, we'll go back to you miss reddit. One thing that I disagree with my party leadership on is same sex marriage, I do support same sex marriage. All right. Mr. Madden, I know you don't have a party. Would you like to name one thing from the Democrats and one thing from the Republicans. It's important to acknowledge that the two parties actually have a lot of unspoken agreements. They pretty much always vote for the war machine they always vote for keeping billionaires appeased and they sure as hell always vote for whatever is in the best interest of keeping them in power and excluding voices, independent voices and other perspectives. So that's what I disagree with the two parties with. Senator ballot, we're going to be back. I will say, yes, I appreciate that, you know, the in the last few cycles we have passed military budgets that exceeded what the Defense Department even asked for, and I just, I can't abide by that. All right. Should Congress abolish the death penalty this be a great yes or no. Miss Reddick. Undecided. Senator ballot. It's just should the federal government abolish the death penalty. Yes. Yes. Mr. Madden. I'm saying yes for the federal government but if the states were to decide that on their own I'd be fine. Okay. Should Congress grant statehood to Washington DC and Puerto Rico. Mr. Madden. No. Miss Reddick. No. Senator ballot. Yes. Should the electoral college be abolished. Senator ballot. Yes. Mr. Ballant. Mr. Madden. Yes. Miss Reddick. Absolutely not. All right. Should black Americans receive reparations. Senator ballot. I believe that that should be on the table. Absolutely how a structured matters, but there is repair that needs to be done there economically. Miss Reddick. That is a really interesting question. We have discussed a lot. Frankly, I would be open to it given the fact that the United States did break its promise after reconstruction. However, we have a ton of programs that have been put into place like platinum plan, like economic opportunity zones that are specifically intended to focus on communities of color. So it would have to be. We would have to really, really look at how it was being administered and calculated. Mr. Madden, you've already touched on this. Do you want a few more words? I'll just say yes. I think it needs to be dramatically disproportionately funded by the very wealthiest in society. All right. And then one last question and we'll let you have your last words. Authorizations for the use of military force passed after the attacks of September 11th and in the run up to the Iraq war still being used today to justify us intervention abroad without direct congressional approval. Would you seek to repeal those authorizations? Mr. Madden? Yes. Senator Ballant. Yes, we must have direct congressional approval. Miss Reddick. Yes, I would. All right. Thank you so much. We will now offer each of you the opportunity to make brief closing statements. You'll each have 60 seconds. Senator Ballant will start with you. Well, thank you all for all of you who tuned in tonight. Really appreciate your engagement in the political process. I'm a mom from Grottoboro. I have a 12 year old and a 14 year old. I taught for many years in the public schools, mostly middle school, and I bring the same lessons that I learned in those classrooms to me into the state house to work on behalf of Vermont's families. The only person on this zoom tonight who has actually passed legislation that has brought housing to Vermonters that has increased the minimum wage that is protected reproductive rights. And I'm proud of the record that I have that I want to say, all of the work that I've done here in Vermont has done because I have always been focused on alleviating suffering of the people in my community in my state, and that is exactly how I will lead in Congress. Thank you and have a good night. Miss Riddick. In my life, and over my time on this planet, what my experience has shown me is that the people in charge of making public policy need to first understand what it is that they're legislating and make sure that they aren't making the problem worse. In my opinion, what we do not need the last thing Vermonters should do is send another politician to Washington, someone who has a demonstrated history of increasing the cost of living, making Vermonters less safe, and taking away your freedom, your personal rights, and imposing government rules and mandates on you, your body and your children. We can't send someone to Washington when they can wield that kind of power on a federal level. What I can promise you I will do as Vermont's next Congresswoman is use all of my experience reason and rationality to help determine whether or not policies will actually be good for you, and for America, because right now, we can tell that our leadership is not doing that, and you deserve better. Thank you. That concludes. Mr. Madden got his closing statement. Oh yeah, that's an important part. Sorry about that Mr. Madden go ahead. Hey fellow Vermonters. Our moment in history is calling us to make profound changes to the way we solve problems together. It should be our goal to make normal and routine among our children and our people the curiosity and the ingenuity of Einstein or Edison, and the moral courage and clarity of Martin Luther King or Frederick Douglass, and the resilience and brilliance of a Helen Keller, but in order to fulfill this potential in order to rise to these challenges we need to improve the way we work together and our first step needs to be liberation from the gridlock dysfunction and corruption of the two parties. I call this rebirthing democracy. You can learn more about that on my website. I don't expect most Vermonters to agree with 100% of my perspectives but I need you to understand that my mission is to upgrade the process and the technology of politics. So whether or not you agree with a politician does not prevent your perspective and your values from being represented. And it does not prevent us together bringing forth the best in each other. I know in your heart that changing the players over and over is a failed strategy that what we need to do is to change the rules of the game then please join me in voting. Not for the experience of those who are wedded to broken tools, but voting for the vision needed to fulfill our potential. Thank you and good night. Thank you did I miss anyone else. Okay, so that actually concludes vt diggers us house general election debate. Please stay tuned to vt digger.org to learn more about upcoming events in the 2022 digger debate series, including our gubernatorial forum on Wednesday, September 28 at main street landing in Washington. I'd like to thank all three of our candidates, Senator back up ballot, Leah Madden and Erica reddick for joining us tonight, as well as the vt digger staffers who made this possible, including my co moderator Lola before. Kate only Mike dogarty Sarah Mirhoff Natalie Williams Libby Johnson and Taylor Haynes to support our coverage of Vermont government politics. Please visit vt digger.org slash donate. Thank you again and good night.


extension educator in Gracia County and we have here is one of the four sites of our soybean organic soybean trials evaluating varieties under organic conditions. We have actually seven companies participating in this trial and six plant breeders from university participating in this trial as well. We have over 50 varieties planted in replications here of four different reps and this is replicated also at three different sites in addition to this one. We're looking at these varieties not only just at harvest time in the yield but we're looking at how these varieties grow during the season to see the plant structure, the weed control, how they canopy, how they pod, how they emerge fast in the spring. There's a lot of factors that we're looking at. We want varieties that the organic producers are going to be desirable for their situation. The plant breeder in Michigan State, he does a lot of work. He has maybe as many as 10,000 lines at his disposal to look at to make crosses and to come up with varieties. So we've changed that. He understands our needs and our desires and he's excited about this as well and hopefully with the several years of doing this we'll be able to identify some of the lines that meet not only the economic desires of the producers but also the desires of the end user as well as far as taste and protein and the type of things they're looking for with their final product. And we're hoping we can get some new releases. The varieties we're working from right now are some of them are quite old. The Vinton is over 30 years old now and that's kind of the main being for comparison for taste. But the yield is quite low compared to the modern varieties that we have. We have quite a high interest among the producers. September the 6th they're going to be coming out and going to three of the sites to be taking some very detailed notes of the characteristics, their interest in starting those varieties that they like the best and then comparing that with the yield at the end. We'll be identifying varieties. Now this is the second year of ones that we want to date in to advance and we'll be sending samples to the end users in Japan and other places to get their approval and in a few years maybe there'll be some commercial varieties that they'll be able to use. Not only from the MSU breeding program but we're also looking at the other standard varieties that are being provided by the other non-GMO plant breeders as well or seed companies as well. We want to make sure that we're really looking at the full gamut of those varieties available for the producers and we're not overlooking something or missing an opportunity. It's hard for a producer to look at more than two or three or four varieties on their own farm in one year and it's kind of a hit-and-miss type of a thing. With this plot we're looking over 50 that we're evaluating and we're doing as a group effort with the producers and also the seed industry and everybody's learning along the way and everybody's going to hopefully reap the benefits for us. This is one of the locations. There's another site over in the Lapeer County, Columbiaville area, a third plot is over in Grashia County in the Middleton area and the fourth site is at the Kellogg biological station at Kalamazoo. The first three that I mentioned were all farmer plot locations and the last one is certified organic but it's a university research farm.