Thank you. Good evening everybody. And i want to thank the aarp for sponsoring this debate and the voters and people in the seventh district for giving me the opportunity to serve them in and congress over these number of years. Ive been there long enough so i was able to move up to the head of the Agricultural Committee and ive been chair man twice and probably the only person thats ever done that. Weve been able to do some good work. Weve kept the Committee Bipartisan which was important to me. We got the usmc a trade agreement done that people were concerned about. We made that happen and got a good democratic vote so i look forward to going back to congress and continuing the bipartisan work that ive done over the number of years. Michelle fischbach, one minute opening statement. Thank you very much to matt and aarp for putting this together tonight. Im Michelle Fischbach. I served in the Minnesota Senate and first female president of the senate and worked as Lieutenant Governor for a short time. I live with my husband and our two children and five grandchildren. Ive enjoyed campaigning across the district and getting the opportunity to talk to people. Although covid slowed us down i stayed on the phone and reached out that way so very happy to do that and i think people were happy to get the phone calls because they were at home, i want to make sure we look to the future in the seventh district and that we make sure that we are making this a place people can live, work and raise their families and make sure we move things forward and work on the economy. And i appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight and i look forward to the discussion. Host topic number one of course schools are starting to open with hybrid learning and things like that and many people are getting back to work the issue has become political. I want each of you to talk about first the u. S. Response to the crisis, specifically President Trump and the response within minnesota. It is an issue that affected us all and i would say i talk a little bit about the shut down and how it affected our campaigning, but i do think that in minnesota in particular yes we try to put a onesizefitsall policy on the entire state and it didnt work for minnesota and we have really done some damage in the aggie ae industry and in the businesses and we need to make sure we are getting the businesses back open or make sure we are moving forward on that because things are depending on that and the economy is depending on that to make sure we are opening those back up. Businesses particularly in rural minnesota understand what it will take to keep their patrons and their customers safe and they are able to follow the cdc guidelines. But let them get back to work and get people back to work and i think on a national level, the president has made sure that we shut down travel as soon he could and make sure we are moving forward on a vaccine. So i appreciate what hes done on the covid relief and we need to make sure we move things forward and opened the businesses back up. Response . When you cant keep president of the United States safe in an environment where they are testing all the time and doing that sort of thing, you know this virus hasnt gone away and that is a serious problem. The people that work for the president , doctor redfield, doctor fauci say the most important thing is to wear a mask, socially distant, wash your hands, and dont get involved in big crowds. Unfortunately we keep sending mixed messages from the federal government, and i think its a battle. We have more faces and more deaths per capita than just about any country in the world, so we need a federal response that is more clear and sends a signal to pull this is what we need to do to stay safe. In the state i think i talked to the governor a number of times and i think it was a mistake to have onesizefitsall for the whole state. I think in this part of the world alongside north dakota and south dakota we could have had different regulations but the governor decided he wanted one regulation for the whole state and frankly i think it was a mistake. Okay, Michelle Fischbach, you can respond. We will move onto the next issue. Lets stick with that and the stimulus package. Right now talks are stalled about a second stimulus package. We may not have anything until after the election. What are both of you, your views on a second stimulus bill and the proposals that are out there. Mr. Peterson you will start on this one. We passed a bill in the house in may that i thought was overdone. I thought it was too much money, but the speaker accepted our agriculture stuff that we worked on in the committee, and because of that i kind of held my nose and supported it because i knew it wasnt going anyplace. Now theyve come up with another bill they dropped the price tag down to 2. 2 trillion and they cut back on some of the stuff. But i just think we have to focus on what the really important things are and not just be giving money out to people because we have to pay this money back some time. So in agriculture we have money for depot chelating hogs and turkeys and we are packing the plans and helping ethanol. I think the bill should focus on what is the crisis and where we can actually help. The last bill i voted against because i just dont think that it fit the mark on what we needed to do. At the end of the day i would have to be in agreement i think it is going to be less money than what we were talking about and it should be. The heros one and he rose to act, yes, i believe congressman peters said he voted yes and it was about 3 trillion worth and much of it was not focused on covid relief and there may have been some great stuff in there but if its not going anywhere via the agricultural provisions can be wonderful but its not going anywhere and heroes one and he rose to, those bills are at a dead end. Nancy pelosi and the leadership, democratic leadership pushed it forward and it was out of negotiating or even talking to the president without talking to the senate and these are dead ends. They are not going anywhere and are not trying to make sure the American People get covid relief, which i support, but they are putting together liberal wish lis wishlist bills, 3 trillion now, they include things like planned parenthood money and money for illegal immigrants. What they need to be doing is actually getting to work focusing on the covid relief that the people need and talking to the president and the senate and moving it forward. Collin peterson, response. The senate hasnt come up with anything realistic either. The president has been back and forth. Right now theres talks going on trying to come up with a solution everybody can support. But i would just have to say when you are working on these big bills and you get what you want in the bill its pretty hard to say okay you gave me what i want, now im going to vote for Everything Else against Everything Else. I voted for it to keep this process going so at the end of the day the people that really need this help, farmers, turkey farmers, packing plants, ethanol plants are going to be in the final package and i think they will be because this last time i had a long discussion with the speaker and said i thought this was a mistake what they were doing that they shouldnt have put it on the floor because it wasnt going anyplace. It was partisan and the wrong thing to be doing at this point in time. I think what we need to be doing is stepping up and if the senate hasnt come up with anything, then the democratic leadership in the house needs to be moving forward and talking to the senate and trying to get these things done. The provisions are still going nowhere because those two bills are not moving so what you need to do is make sure in the opening you talked about being bipartisan. Maybe what we need to do is move forward and be bipartisan on the senate bill and talk about the process. Do you have a response. Every republican on the committee supported what i did. I dont know how i can be more bipartisan than that. I had a very tough discussion with the speaker that she doesnt like and i told her what i thought and thats how it works. Michelle knows that. She was in the legislature. On these bills you cant have everything exactly the way you want it. So we have been bipartisan and at the end of the day i think we will be successful. Michelle fischbach, i will give you the last word on the topic. A. Theres nothing happening on. Those two bills, the most recent isnt moving forward and right now we do not have any covid relief in the Agricultural Sector or for the American People. We will get to agriculture very quickly but the next topic is the Supreme Court vacancy brought on by Ruth Bader Ginsburgs passing. Youve introduced a constitutional amendment that would say nine justices can serve on the court. Theres been talk that if elected, there could be a Court Packing so this is a twopronged debate. First off, talk about why you propose this amendment even though Michelle Fischbach will go first and then also do you both feel the nomination should be delayed until after the election or go forward now. First of all, i do appreciate the legislation not to pack the court or the resolution not to pack the court because that isnt something i support or want to see. But i absolutely support the president moving forward with the nomination and the senate moving forth with the confirmation. Its the constitutional duty to make sure that they do that and move forward and make sure the vacancy is filled, and i think its an important part of their duty and they should do it. I appreciate Amy Coney Barrett and think she would make an excellent Supreme Court justice. Mr. Peterson. Well, we were working on this bill before the Supreme Court issue came up. So we worked on this bill, had it ready to go and introduced it. This talk of packing the court or we have enough problems in the country and divisions in the country to not be doing that. We introduced this constitutional amendment and hope we can get support for it. Nine justices have served for a couple of years and theres really no issue to change that. In terms of this nomination, i know there are people that are upset, but the president wants to move it. Its his prerogative. The senate apparently has the vote. Its their prerogative. And thats the way the constitution set this up and the way things work. A followup on this. What is the difference then between this situation and the garland situation from years ago which is what we hear on the democratic side. Michelle fischbach. I will say every situation is different when there is a Supreme Court vacancy and i believe it is a constitutional duty for the president to go ahead, move ahead and its their prerogative and they should handle it both of the president and senate should go ahead and handle it. I think theres a fair amount of hypocrisy going on because we have people that took one position, republicans in 16 and now they have a completely different position. Having said that, again, the president has the prerogative to do this. Apparently they have the votes. We will see. In the house we dont have a vote. Anything else . And each of you comment on how the trade war with china impacted farmers both nationally and in the seventh district, Collin Peterson, you start this one. It hasnt been positive. Creating about 25 where we were when we got into this in agriculture. The secretary said yesterday at a meeting he was at that they are not going to get the phase one targets that theyve set out there. And its been a problem because these prices come back a little bit its not been because of the trade situation. My biggest problem with whats happening, china is a bad actor and i voted not to let them in the wto and not to let them in the most favored nation status and that was the right vote because we knew at the time they were going to do what they did. So if we had done the right thing back then we wouldnt be in this predicament. And i dont disagree maybe we need to do something to try to rein them in, but i think that these terrorists have been a huge mistake. They have not worked. They hurt not only farmers but manufacturers and a lot of other folks in my district and they have not solved the problem. Michelle fischbach, your response. Prior to the shutdowns and the pandemic, President Trump was making headway and we do know they are bad actors. They are not trustworthy that they have been ripping off the farmers and the industry for years. So President Trump took that step forward and started to deal with those things making sure we were going to be getting at least a fair deal and decent deal. And people understood that. People understand particularly now after the outbreak and all the things that have been going on, people understand china isnt a good actor but i think the president has been making headway and making sure we move forward with those negotiations and in addition to that, the ones hurting the farmers are retaliatory and that is where they are coming from. And i do understand the congressman is going to talk about the tariffs and blame them on the president. But do understand hes trying to do what he thinks is right so we get a decent deal from china and we do need to continue to expand our trade partners whether it be australia, vietnam, continue to move forward and expand our trade partners across the world. Im not blaming this on the president. The question is who they will retaliate against. People need to understand that it is in the farmers that will hurt by these are people that benefited from the trade going on because when the people over there, when we lost the jobs and manufacturing in ohio and other places, the people in the country went in and took their jobs that used to be in the United States, they used to get paid for or 5,000 a month, but the people moved and used to be farmers so then what happened is we sold farm goods to make up for the loss of what happened. So, we had benefited. Its hard to put any kind of a spin on this that its somehow one or another a win for agriculture. I think if we continue through, the negotiations will continue and the attempt to make the chinese create a fair trade deal will continue. I think President Trump understands what its doing congressman peterson, would you manage the policy or try to move up the ranks of the Committee Chairmanships and things like this how would you approach for the seventh district . I did serve in the Minnesota Senate and i served an area. Its weekly to make sure we are hearing whats going on in the field and. We have a farm bill coming up in 2023 and we need to start that conversation early and learn what is important to the farmers and what they think is working and what they think they need, not just someone from washington, d. C. Telling them what they need but understanding whats going on with them and i will continue to make sure that that conversation continues after i am elected. Agriculture is this district and here in the valley the sugar industry is a huge part through the whole situation. I become the head of the committee and that is a big deal in terms of getting things done. It doesnt start until i get into the room and the secretary calls me all the time to talk about what hes doing as people call me and run things by me they ask my advice, i give them my advice and that is something that doesnt have been wit happe rank and file member. The first ten years i was ignored basically but i kept learning and working up the ranks and got into the positionn i could do something. What ive done in congress is respected all across the country by all of agriculture both sides of the aisle and if theres anybody that wont say i do a good job and i know what im talking about. Michelle fischbach. Let me follow this up on the ethanol policy in the district and how that plays off. I thought that it was the congressmans turn. [inaudible] certainly ive always been a supporter of ethanol and in my time in the Minnesota Senate did make sure we were supporters and did what we could to help them in the Minnesota Senate. But i understand the small refinery exemptions have been a problem but the tenth circuit most recently found on the biofuel side so i think that is going to be taken care of and i will do everything i can to make sure those small refinery exemptions are not abused but i will say the Green New Deal in the proposals and regulation coming out of the democratic side do more to her to the ethanol industry than anything. That would eliminate a lot of the fossil fuel and there wouldnt be anything to blend with is the new deal is passed. So i want to make sure that the federal government doesnt do anything to hurt the ethanol industry that i will do everything i can to make sure that those exemptions are dealt with. The Green New Deal i oppose as well and its dead as a doornail and it isnt going anyplace. So thats the debate we do not need to have. The ethanol situation, i was there and the speaker helped us get this done and what it says is we should have 15 billion of ethanol blended into the gasoline in this country. Thats what it says. We have 12. 5 billion gallons. One of the reasons we are in jeopardy is because of that. We had a collapse in oil prices. People quit driving because of covid. That is a separate thing but you put that together with these exemptions and what we are doing, youve put this industry in jeopardy. I was there in the room when we had to take this amendment that allowed them to have these waivers and we objected to it at the time and they said this is only going to be small refineries, this is only going to be used under emergencies and that is what it was until 2016. It hasnt been there until President Trump has taken office and its her to significantly. Before you can sell e15. There is not any kind of solution and its a way for a politician to be off the