 Good evening. Welcome to the sixth event in the Digger 2022 debate series and Vermont's first U.S. Senate debate. I'm John Riley. I'm President of the Board of Trustees of Vermont Journalism Trust, which is the governing organization for VT Digger. We're pleased to be here in Manchester, beautiful town, and at the Southern Vermont Arts Center. And a special thanks to Jeremy and the crew for their help. They got me set up with a Wi-Fi for one of those annoying Zoom calls that spoiled my otherwise beautiful afternoon, Manchester. Over the past few months, VT Digger has really been increasing its commitment to coverage in Southern Vermont. We've increased the number of reporters in the region from two to four and added a dedicated Southern Vermont editor. It's just crucial to having statewide news coverage. We know that news is very important, local and statewide news to the readers in this area. Thank you for Southern Vermont. Yes, we're all one state. It was so important that we covered. Over the next month, we'll be hosting three more general election debates. First Thursday, September 15th, we'll hold an online-only debate for Vermont's open U.S. House seat. On Wednesday, September 28th, we'll be holding the gubernatorial candidates debate in Burlington at Main Street Landing. And the following Wednesday, October 5th, we'll conduct an online-only lieutenant gubernatorial debate. All events start at 6 p.m. and more details are available on our website, www.VTDigger.org. And before we get to the main event, I also want to thank our sponsors this evening. A sponsor tonight's debate is the Krossen Group, a top-ranked government and public affairs firm, serving clients on issues important to those who work, do business, and live in Vermont. I'd also like to thank supporting sponsor Nanine Neubon. Paul will think I got the pronunciation wrong, but I just had the pleasure of meeting her. I understand that that is the correct German pronunciation. Finally, I'd like to remind you that VT Digger is a nonprofit news organization empowered by our contributing members. We simply could not do what we do, covering the news, hosting events like this without your support. And if you're able, we'd like to as urge you to visit www.VTDigger.org. And help us continue to shine a light on this great state. And now I will turn it over to VT Digger, managing editor Paul Heinz, to outline the rules for tonight's debate and introduce the candidates and moderators. Paul? Thank you, John, very much. And thank you to the members of VT Digger and to the sponsors who made this event possible. It's so great to be here in Manchester with you all. Before I introduce the candidates and the moderators, I'd like to briefly outline the format and the rules of this debate. We'll start by asking the candidates to deliver brief introductory remarks focused on a question that we provided ahead of time. We'll then turn to questions that our moderators will pose to both of the candidates. Candidates will generally have 90 seconds to respond to such questions. The moderators may pose brief follow-up questions or, at their discretion, allow the opposing candidate to respond. We'll generally allow those named by their opponent to respond. Such responses will be limited to 30 seconds. Twice during the debate, we'll allow both of the candidates to pose a question to one another. Finally, we expect to end the evening with a lightning round during which the candidates will answer questions in just a few words. And we're going to hold you to just a few words. And time permitting, we'll have closing statements. I now have the pleasure of introducing our candidates and moderators. Joining us on stage are the two major party nominees for the U.S. Senate seat that will open up in January with the retirement of veteran U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy. Standing to my immediate right is Republican nominee Gerald Beloy. He's a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point and served for more than two decades in the U.S. Army. Since retiring as a major in 2006, he's worked in emergency management and business management, and he lives in Perkinsville. Welcome. Thank you. And I guess standing to my left is Democratic nominee Peter Welch. I shouldn't have gone with that joke. He's an attorney by training. I think they like that you're an attorney. I think that's what they're trying to say. Who first won a seat in the Vermont Senate in 1980. He served twice as President Protam of the State Senate and won Vermont's at-large seat in the U.S. House in 2006, and he lives in Norwich. Finally, and this is where you should really applaud, I'm pleased to introduce our all-star moderators tonight, BT Digger reporters Sarah Mirhoff and Riley Robinson. Sarah and Riley, thank you. Sarah and Riley, it's all yours. Thank you. Thanks, Paul. We'll begin this evening with an introductory question to each of you, our candidates. What do you see as the most pressing issue facing Vermonters today, and why are you the person to best address that issue as our next senator? We'll have 60 seconds to respond, Congressman Welch. First of all, the stakes in this election are extraordinarily grave. We have a 50-50 Senate and the question is going to be whether we have a Senate that's going to fight for democracy. The challenges we face in Vermont are coming off of COVID. There's affordability, the cost of childcare, the cost of gas, the cost of housing. There's climate change where we as a state have been a leader. And finally, the federal government is providing policies to help us, but that is an urgent existential issue. There is reproductive freedom. We have a Supreme Court that for the first time has taken away a constitutional right from all women in this country rather than expand rights. But the fundamental issue that is essential for all of us to make progress in any of these is saving our democracy. It is under threat. I was there on January 6th, but that threat to democracy, take my word, it is serious. Mr. Malloy. Thank you. The answer is the economy. And the truth is Washington has given us a 40-year high inflation, a recession, record high gas prices, and a staggering $31 trillion debt. It's from massive overspending by Congress, including my opponent, and giving up our oil and gas independence that we had. We will have more hardship and job loss and even possibly the collapse of the dollar. It's time for change. I am the best person to be your next senator because I bring what's missing in Vermont, excuse me, in Vermont and Washington. But in Washington, leadership and performance, 42 years worth, including 22 years on active duty in the Army. I also bring common sense. I bring discipline and I bring the willingness that career politicians are not willing to do this. I bring the willingness to make the tough decisions. I will represent all Vermonters, not just a portion of Vermonters. So what we're looking at is either status quo for not change or change towards a bright future. I love our brave little state and I will deliver for a better future for Vermont. Thank you. Next question. Inflation in the United States remains near a 40-year high, and many economists, including the Congressional Budget Office, have argued that the Inflation Reduction Act, passed last month, is unlikely to reduce inflation in the immediate future. What should Congress do next to ensure Americans can afford essentials like food, fuel and housing? You'll each have 90 seconds to respond. Mr. Malay. Well, the Inflation Reduction Act is not going to reduce inflation. It's probably going to increase inflation and it's another example, as I mentioned, massive overspending. I think it totals out to about $780 billion. It's $360 billion, $70 billion of overspending in that bill across healthcare and climate and another area. That's the problem that we're facing right now with our economy. The reason we have 40-year high inflation is that we've had massive overspending. $2.8 billion, excuse me, trillion dollars last year, well over a trillion dollars this year. Simple economics, you pump money into the economy, it's going to cause inflation. We've had a horrible response to that, and so we have 40 years. 8, 9 percent, that's using the old system. It's more like 15, 16 percent actual. To add itself to injury, we have Fed tamping down. So we actually have, even our President, with the latest constitutional order, excuse me, what I consider unconstitutional, executive order spending another trillion dollars. But further overspending while we're tamping down the economy, what most people don't realize is every time we add 75 basis points, that adds hundreds of billions of dollars to our interest costs. We're on a death spiral, so the overspending has to stop. Thank you, Mr. Malloy. But granted that that money has already been spent in Congress, I'm going to repeat this question again. What should Congress do next to reduce inflation in the immediate term? Have some fiscal responsibility and stop overspending and destroying the future for our children. Thank you. Congressman Welch. Well, first of all, inflation is a very serious problem. If you're a family and you're heading to the grocery store and you fill up for gas, it was five bucks a year ago, it's coming down a little under four, but that's tough. And when you have to pay for groceries, you've got a family of three or four, that's really expensive. So we do have to do everything we can to take it seriously. A lot of what has happened with inflation is a residue of what happened with COVID. Our economy went into a total stall. We had to spend money in order to save our businesses. Also, we saw with the stoppage of work in China, chips that were essential to the manufacturing of our automobiles were nowhere in supply and the price of automobiles went up. We have to do a steady approach to bring in down cost. Prescription drugs, for instance. We finally, finally have price negotiations so the cost of insulin will be capped at 35 bucks a month. We have to help on housing where young families have no ability to afford the housing that is out there. And that is a combination of the federal government providing funds to bring down the cost of housing by helping to build more. We passed the CHIPS Act, which is about on sourcing the creation of chips right here in our country to bring manufacturing jobs back here and make certain that we're not subject to the whims of China. So this is an ongoing effort that, by the way, should include bipartisan cooperation to bring these prices down and to make manufacturing stronger in our own country here in Vermont and in America. Congressman, like I just did for Mr. Malay, could you please state what Congress should do next to address inflation? Well, I want more money for housing. That has to be in partnership with our state and local government. We have to help pass support for childcare. The average family, young family with two kids in Vermont, pays 30% of their income for childcare. And when we had Build Back Better, that was going to come down. And by the way, Mr. Malay, we can pay for that. And you know how we pay for it? We buy asking the folks who haven't been paying their fair share. There's a lot of folks in this country who've done really well to pay their fair share. I appreciate the enthusiasm of our audience, but there's going to be plenty of time to clap at the end. If you could please hold your applause so we can ask our questions. Thank you. Thank you. For our next question, our next question comes from a reader. It comes from Allison Goethier of Brattleboro. Allison wrote in to ask, with the recent forgiveness of some student debt, I am curious about your ideas on other solutions to the runaway costs of higher education, given the oversized endowments of many institutions, and the economic and personal cost of student loans. Again, you'll each have 90 seconds. Congressman Welch. Well, first of all, student debt is really scandalous. When I went to college, if I had a summer job, and then I did work study in college, I was able essentially to cover the cost of tuition. Students who work two jobs can't do it any longer. So I support the debt forgiveness that's going to help 77,000 Vermont kids, by the way, and their parents. But we've got to get the colleges involved here. The colleges in UVM in the last three years has had a tuition freeze. These tuition have been going up and up and up. The last 30 years, up 170%. So the colleges have to play a role in this. Also, on student loans, the banks have made out like bandits for a long time. And the fact is the interest rates should be substantially lower than they are. You know, for much of that time when we had really super low interest rates, the government was borrowing at 1% or 2% and charging parents and students 7% and 8%. That is outrageous. That interest rate should have come down to be much lower. And I want to see us do these things to make college affordable. And by the way, that includes support from the state and the local government to help have tuition be affordable so that when kids who are starting out don't start with a mountain of debt that's like a first mortgage on a big home that they don't own but would like to buy a small condo. Mr. Malloy. Well, for the Inflation Reduction Act, I'm sorry, for the student loan forgiveness, the issue there is the cost of college and it has skyrocketed and it's out of control. And that's the issue we should be addressing. I did read a recent article from the president of Purdue University. My son's actually a senior there. President Purdue described how Purdue hasn't raised their prices in 10 years. So there is a model and some strategy out there where you can actually provide affordable education and there's some good examples there. In looking at this, as I mentioned about the president and what I consider unconstitutional act, Congress controls the purse springs and we have our president who has just decided in an executive order to spend hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars right off the bat and another $500 billion down the road for a total of about a $1 trillion further overspending. I have issues with that. I also have issues with the fairness of the Loan Forgiveness Act. For instance, we have students that decided to join the army, for instance, to help pay for their college. They're not getting the benefit of this. It does seem to me to appear to be like an attempt to buy votes, so I'm overall not in favor of it. Our next question. President Biden last week delivered a speech about what he called MAGA Republicans saying, quote, they refuse to accept the results of a free election and they're working right now, as I speak, in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself, end quote. Do you agree with President Biden that this movement represents a threat to democracy? Why or why not? You'll have 90 seconds. Mr. Malloy? No, I do not. I'm disappointed with President Biden's speech. It's further divisive and are already divisive country and using words such as semi-fascist. I don't agree with that at all. I want to unify our country and he's not doing that in speeches like this. We're all Americans and we need to move forward with solutions and not name calling. Congressman Welch? We've got a serious threat to our democracy. I mean, one of the saddest days of my life in public service was January 6th. And a mob was assembled. There was money raised by the Trump Organization to bring people and it was all based on his assertion from the day of the election, actually even before the election, that the election was stolen. He lost by 7 million votes but he said the election was stolen and the motto was stop the steal. And there was violence that day. I was in the Capitol when the shots were fired, when the mob was trying to break down the doors of the House chamber. And as scary as that was and as horrible as it was, it was worse. At three in the morning when I came back and my job was to certify that Joe Biden received the majority of votes in Vermont. It was not to cast my vote, it was to validate your vote. Donald Trump has been persistently continuing to peddle this lie about a stolen election and that has been used to motivate people who believe him and then are doing everything they can to disrupt what has served this country so well since its founding and that is the peaceful transfer of power and the acceptance by all in the political process of the winner according to who voted for the President. So I do believe there is a serious threat and I do believe we have to face it and I do believe it is essential if we're going to address all of these other challenges that a society has to contend with through the political process. We're going to stay on this topic a little bit longer, a 30 second follow up for each of you. Mr. Malloy, do you believe Joe Biden legitimately won the 2020 presidential election? Yes. And Congressman Welch, a question for you. In his speech, President Biden alluded to a legal strategy that could give state legislatures more power to decide future elections, also known as the independent state legislature doctrine. What would you do in the Senate to slow or reverse these types of state level reforms? 30 seconds. Well, I would support the Electoral Reform Act that has some bipartisan support with Susan Collins in Joe Manchin. You know, the job of a member of Congress when it comes to certification is not to impose his or her judgment. It's to certify that the people of Vermont voted for whoever it is the people of Vermont voted for. If they voted for Trump, I would have certified the Trump one. They voted for Biden and I certified the Biden one. So the idea that our state legislature or any state legislature could strip away the rightful place of individuals to select their leader, I adamantly oppose, that is the end of democracy. Yes or no, Mr. Malloy, would you vote in favor of the Electoral Reform Act? I'd have to review it closely. I'd have to review any act before I could really say one way or another. Okay. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to overturn landmark Roe versus Wade case precedent, thereby striking down the federal right to an abortion, numerous VT Digger readers submitted questions on abortion rights for this debate. Congressman Welch, you've stated numerous times on the record that you support the right to an abortion. What measures would you take in the U.S. Senate to expand abortion access and how would you get it across the finish line with a razor thin Democratic majority or possibly minority come January? Well, there's two things. I mean, first of all, as I said earlier, it's a staggering decision by the Supreme Court to strip away a constitutional right that women have had for 50 years. In the House, I have already voted for and we have passed in the House the Women's Health Protection Act that would restore reproductive freedom to all women in this nation. In the Senate, if I were there now, I would vote for it and I would vote to end the filibuster if that's what it took for us to have an opportunity to pass that with 50 votes in the decision of the Vice President. I will not stop. I will not compromise on protecting reproductive freedom, not just for women in Vermont. I'll be voting for Proposition 5. But for all women in this nation, your right to make your own reproductive choices should not depend on the zip code you live in. A quick follow-up for you, Congressman Welch. In your nearly 16 years served in the U.S. House, what specifically have you done to protect and expand access to abortion? You know, I've been, we've incredible leadership of women in the Congress who have been our leaders in every item, every bill that has done anything to expand access to reproductive choice. Everything that has allowed for us to fund healthcare for women, I have supported from top to bottom, consistently and always. Mr. Malloy, to you, Republican lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, have said that they would consider passing a nationwide abortion ban should they win back the majority in Congress. Would you support such a ban? Well, I supported, I talked about that. I thought per the Constitution that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and go to the states respectively as to people, exactly what it says in the 10th Amendment. That happened. It took 50 years and went to the states. It's not coming back. I don't think there's any action for me as a U.S. senator because that is a state issue. That's the only way I will impact Vermont is with my vote as a Vermonter. It's a state issue. Again, would you vote in favor? It would never come up back up in my opinion. It's a state issue. That's not what federal Republican lawmakers have said. They have said that they would propose such a plan. No, I would not. If it would, I believe it belongs at the state. So if it were to somehow come up again, which I really don't think it will, I would look at that. But I believe it belongs at the state. So you'd vote now? I'd have to look at it. In the case of such a hypothetical federal abortion ban, would you, do you believe such a ban should include exceptions for cases of rape and incest? It depends on the state law. It's gone to the states, whatever, for instance, the Vermont law is, however that law applies, that's what would apply in the state. We'll move on. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision have become increasingly polarized, and the Senate confirmation votes for new justices are now more often taken on party lines. As a senator, what are the litmus tests or criteria you would use when deciding to vote to confirm new Supreme Court nominees? Mr. Malloy. Sure. So for any nominee in particular, I made comments about this, about the recent Supreme Court justice nominee. I would take a deep look at the character and qualifications of that nominee. Supreme Court justice, I would actually want to participate in those hearings. I would want, I talked about wanting to have a private meeting with that Supreme Court justice nominee as that is a lifetime appointment. In the case of Katanji Brown Jackson, I voiced that I would not have supported her nomination, and that's because I found that she was soft on crime. I don't think it's right to have a lifetime Supreme Court justice, Supreme Court justice that's soft on crime. I would, to answer your question again, it's based on character and qualifications. Congressman Welch. You know, we like to say that we wouldn't have a litmus test that it's based on character, it's based on qualifications, but let me tell you something. I would not support anybody, and this would be a litmus test, who gave me the slightest shiver of doubt that they would take away a constitutional right that a woman enjoyed, that an African American enjoyed, any people of color enjoyed. I would be against anyone who is going down this McConnell federalist approach of taking away rights that have been hard fought, hard earned. And that's happening. The judicial process now, we have the hearings in the U.S. Senate, but what Senator McConnell has done for years is have a tryout before the federalist society where the folks who go before that to get the approval so that Donald Trump or will nominate them is they make it clear. They make it clear that they're willing to support the denial of rights like Roe v. Wade, and that has got to end. So any justice that comes before me has to be absolutely clear that they will protect and preserve the constitutional rights of every American. I have a related follow up for each of you. What reforms, if any, to the Supreme Court would you support, Congressman? The best reform that I have, and by the way, the court is broken. Let me be clear about that. I mean, this court is as bad as the court in 1857 in the Tony decision when they said an African American was not a person. And this court in the Dobs decision not only took away reproductive freedom, but as you saw with what justice, one of the justices said is that substantive due process doesn't exist. So it can be, can I get a little extra time? Yes, please finish your thought. The reform that I think is the best is we have two, we have 18 year term limits for justices. And every two years you have a new justice and every president that is elected by the people is going to have an opportunity during that person's four year term to nominate two justices. Mr. Malay. I did not have any reform in mind for the Supreme Court. As I mentioned, I think it's been making some appropriate decisions in line with the Constitution. I was encouraged mostly recently with the West Virginia versus the EPA decision. I saw that as a Supreme Court telling Congress to do its job because we've gotten very far away from Congress making the law. So I don't have any reforms in mind. Thank you both. We'll now have an opportunity for candidates to ask one another questions. Each candidate, you'll get to ask each other one question of your choosing. I ask that these should be questions and not speeches. And you'll each have 90 seconds to answer. We may ask or allow for follow ups. We'll go first to Congressman Welch. What is your question? I want to talk a little bit about vaccination. You know, we went through COVID. It's been tough and Vermont did an outstanding job. I give Governor Scott an immense amount of credit and we had most of us vaccinated and vaccinated quickly. Mr. Malay, I understand that you chose not to be vaccinated and I'm interested in knowing why you made that decision. Well, that was my personal choice and I decided to go with the natural immunity route and I respect anyone's decision to be vaccinated. I don't think it was right to mandate vaccines, but if anyone wants to be vaccinated, that's an individual decision. I decided early on to go with the natural immunity route. That's my personal choice. Can I ask you a question? Sure, follow up. What's the health basis though? You know, let me just be blunt here. Natural immunity means we all get sick so that enough of us get sick and by the way die that the virus will die out itself at a certain point. But how many lives will that cost? But as I understand it, and I listened to you in one of your other discussions, it had to do with your view on abortion. Could you explain that? It was my choice to go with natural immunity. I can tell you, I actually have worked for a pandemic response for the government and I did learn a lot in that process many years ago about how vaccines are made and vaccines are made through aborted fetal cell lines. I do not agree with that. But my decision here was to go with personal immunity, whatever the immunity term is. Mr. Malay, your turn to ask a question. One of the most frightening things that a family or small business owner can go through is to be audited by the IRS. They are expensive and time consuming. One audit can destroy a small business. A recent analysis by Syracuse University found that poor families are audited five times as much at the rate of wealthy families, five times. Yet despite this, you, Mr. Welch, voted this year to increase funding for the at the IRS by $80 billion including hiring 87,000 new IRS employees. During this terrible economic recession where American families are already suffering greatly, why would you vote to increase tax collection on Americans? Well, there are a lot of Americans who make an awful lot of money who aren't paying their taxes and I think their taxes ought to be collected. You know, the top 1 percent, the estimates are, are not paying $160 billion a year in taxes that they owe. Not hire taxes, not new taxes, taxes that are due. And what is happening with the IRS? And by the way, the IRS recommendation was made by a Republican. The head of the IRS is a Republican appointed by Donald Trump. And he was shocked by two things. One, the non-compliance at the high income level. And of course, President Biden has made it clear that anyone with an income under $400,000, you're not going to be subject to more audits, okay? It's going to be that top 1 percent. But the second thing is, you know what, when you call the IRS, you deserve somebody to pick up the phone and answer your question. One of the most common calls to my office is from people, including small business people, who can't get an answer from the IRS. And they've got to call their congressman to get that answer. That's not right. So we have to have, this is like 8,000 people that would be hired each year in this vast country of ours to provide good customer service. It's overdue. So customer service number one, compliance for the top 1 percent who are stiffen us for $160 billion a year. And by the way, if you don't have, we don't have that money that they owe, not new taxes, that means you're going to ultimately pay more. Or your kids aren't going to have a chance to have the government help out with childcare, things that we need. Thank you. Can I ask a follow-up? Go ahead. Sure. The bill doesn't specify where these new audits will be. It leads it wide open. The bill also, many Vermonters are in extra money on the side drops to apps like Venmo and PayPal. These are now going to start sending reports to the IRS with poor people being audited five times the rate of rich people. Are we supposed to just trust the government to be honest about this? You know, I've been dealing with this for a number of years and what I'm getting are two things. As I said, Mr. Malloy, one of the calls are people are just exasperated. They don't know where the refund is. They can't get an answer on a deduction. And number two, that absolute rampant non-compliance. Janet Yellen, the Secretary of Treasury, the President, and really Republicans and Democrats together do not want to hassle everyday folks who are struggling to pay the bills. But we do want good service for citizens and we do want the very wealthy to pay what their, what's due. Thank you both. We'll have another round of candidate to candidate questions in a bit, but for now we'll return to questions for each one of you. Several VT Digger readers submitted questions regarding the U.S.-Mexico border and immigration policy. How would you propose the U.S. reform its asylum, immigration, and citizenship processes for those seeking to enter the country? You'll have 90 seconds, Mr. Malloy. Sure. So we are a nation of immigrants and I am in favor of immigration reform and provision and developing policies related to that. I'm in favor of legal immigration, not illegal immigration. And you've probably heard me, I am in favor of putting up a wall, but that's to stop the drug crisis and the human trafficking crisis that we have right now. I think it's a top-down leadership issue to have actually our border agents actually start enforcing immigration laws. We have roughly 200,000 illegal immigrants coming into the country every month. And I'm in favor of legal immigration. Congressman Welch. Well, I definitely am in favor of expanded legal immigration and that means that we have to act. Our immigration, by the way, our legal immigration is about the lowest it's been in the history of our country. And our country has always been made stronger when we have a legal immigration process. So I am one who is very much in favor, hopefully on a bipartisan basis, to increase the number of people who are allowed to apply and go through a legal process to be an immigrant and become eventually an American citizen. Secondly, I do think we have to give relief to the dreamers. And of course, these are young children, oftentimes five, six, seven years old who were brought here when they were that age. And the only country they know, in many cases, the only language they speak is English. Many of these people served in Iraq, in Afghanistan. They need a pathway to citizenship and I favor that. The other thing that we have to do with the influx of, with the border situation is we've got to work with those countries, particularly in Central America, to address the economic conditions there that are having people make the desperate decision in the middle of the night to flee crime, to flee environmental suffering in those areas where their economy is totally sinking and they see the U.S. as an outlet. So it has to be a comprehensive approach and one that is not just politicized as it has been for so many years. A quick follow-up for each of you. How would you or wouldn't you propose the United States reform its enforcement of immigration law both on the border and throughout the country? Mr. Malloy. Well I talked about, I think it's a leadership issue that we're not enforcing our immigration laws at the border and I would look to influence that and that comes from the president and the executive branch but as a U.S. Senator I would look to have our border agents actually enforce our immigration laws. Congressman Welch. We need more judges, more administrative officers to assess the claims as quickly as possible so that there can be a fair hearing when a person is seeking asylum and that has to be funded, that has to be staffed and that is a way in which we can begin to make progress. But as I said earlier there also has to be a commitment to making legal immigration more accessible, legal immigration more accessible and there also has to be a commitment to addressing some of the reasons why so many people are trying to cross the border illegally as well as the enforcement. Congressman Welch, excuse me I'm sorry. We'll stay with you for the next question. You pledged in this campaign that you would no longer accept donations from corporate political action committees or PACs but you had previously accepted corporate donations in your eight previous congressional runs and carried over funds from those past campaigns to this one. If you now think it's wrong to take money from corporate PACs, why did you do it during those eight previous campaigns? Well all of my contributions and all of my expenditures are disclosed and every one of my votes is based on my judgment about what's best for voters and the PAC contributions is for many people a symbol of how our campaign system does not work. I happen to believe it doesn't work and it's one of the reasons I have the endorsement of End Citizens United. What has happened in this country is the PAC contributions are one thing but those are limited to $5,000. What's really astonishing since Citizens United is that dark money, that is a million dollar check can be written by a person whose identity is not disclosed, can be sent to a state and it start influencing elections. So we have got a real frustration in this country with how broken our campaign finance system is. I am supported by Citizens United in part because I've been a long time advocate for campaign finance reform including public financing of our elections. A 30 second follow-up for you Congressman, your campaign this year is still accepting large donations from industry PACs including ones that represent medical, agricultural, real estate and retail businesses. How do trade PACs like these represent the interests of everyday Vermonters? Well, it can be a labor PAC where you've got individuals who are part of the union are contributing to the PAC. It can be farmers who are contributing to the PAC and keep in mind that amount, the most it can be is $5,000 and it has to be disclosed. So I am proud to get contributions from people through their joint effort to contribute to my campaign and I got to tell you another thing, in this election the biggest question is the $200 million super PAC that Mitch McConnell has and can use anytime, anywhere for any reason but it won't be because he particularly cares about Vermon. It will be because he wants to get the gavel and be the majority leader. Mr. Molloy, I'm really sorry. Do you believe corporations and industry groups should be permitted to fund political campaigns? Why or why not? I hadn't given that much thought but I would say yes. Would you like to elaborate? You have 90 seconds. I don't have really much elaboration. I can say I do fundraising and I have raised some money. I don't have $3 or $4 million. I maybe have 5% of that but if corporations are interested in supporting a candidate I don't seem to see the need to restrict that. Do you believe there is anything wrong with the current system of political contributions? Well, I do think that as we go through politics and I'm here against Mr. Welch and he's been a politician for many, many, many years. That does grow the campaign fund for a politician to a huge amount and it makes it very difficult for anyone to come in and be competitive. So I think I am somewhat interested in term limits and I think maybe part of that could be have some language in there in terms of managing the funding amount for elections. Thank you for your next question. Weeks after Russia invaded Ukraine and gas and oil prices skyrocketed both domestically and abroad, the Biden administration in April announced plans to resume selling leases for new oil and gas drilling on federal lands, breaking a campaign promise of the president. As a U.S. Senator, how would you balance U.S. energy independence with protecting the integrity of federal lands and larger climate goals? Do you support increased drilling on federal lands? Mr. Malay. My answer is yes and I've talked about what I believe was an unconstitutional executive order by President Biden day one to effectively kill the oil and gas industry. I don't think that's right. It has put financial hardship on all Americans and it kind of ties into the desire to move to the future energy. I think we can actually do both at the same time. I'm not in favor of what I call a crusade to kill the oil and gas industry. It has caused that. That is the reason why we had four, five, six, seven dollar a gallon gas. We had oil and gas independence here in the United States and we lost that. It's the reason now, you know, our president has gone to strategic reserves there at 1984 levels and he's gone to some other countries seeking oil from them. I am in favor of developing future energy capacity. Some of my overall objectives ensure we have oil independence across oil and gas, future energy, critical technology, excuse me, and food. But I thought that day one executive order was unconstitutional. I realize just now that I asked you multiple questions in one go, so I want to be really clear. Your answer, yes. Was that to do you support increased drilling on federal land? Yes. Thank you. Congressman Welch. Number one, I favor energy independence. Number two, I don't favor more drilling on federal lands. And number three, I want to address what is a premise in your question. The oil companies are game-in-us. They have leases on which they can drill right now and they're not drilling. They have many wells that they could start producing and they're not doing it. And Congress couldn't even stop them. They've got a good deal going. The price of oil went way up. They can make money without drilling just by raising the price. They've got monopoly pricing power and they have been ripping us off. That's true. You know, we have a challenge here because of what happened in Ukraine. And all of us want to do everything we can to help the folks in Ukraine thwart that invasion by Vladimir Putin. But it's had a real consequence. And you know what, why couldn't the oil companies just lighten up a little bit? They're making record profits, literally record profits. They've never had such a rich moment. Why couldn't they just lighten up on those price increases? Maybe lighten up a little bit on those stock buybacks they're spending billions of dollars on. Maybe give us a break at the pump. They could contribute to our well-being by taking the pressure off everyday American families who are really getting hurt at the pump. Thank you both. Several VT Digger readers submitted questions related to the F-35 fighter jets stationed at the Vermont Air National Guard Base in South Burlington. Activists expressed concerns about noise pollution for years before the jets arrived. Nearly three years into their operation, some residents still describe persistent disruptions. Some said they feel like they had no choice but to move. Congressman Welch, we'll start with you. You supported the F-35 program throughout the basing process. Do you maintain that position? Do you have any regrets about doing so? I do maintain the position. In the question, we have an air guard. We're very proud of our national guard. Air guard needs airplanes. There was a comprehensive approach that I was not directly involved in to decide where to recommend the basing of those F-35s and the decision was to have it be in Burlington. Now, having said that, that's tough on some folks in the neighborhood. It really is because there is noise associated with that. And I've been a persistent advocate for noise mitigation, including buying up homes at a fair price, if that's what the choice is. So, no, I continue to support it, but I continue to work as hard as I possibly can to mitigate the impact on the community. And I'll continue to do that. Thank you, Mr. Malloy. Do you believe, I'm sorry, I should expand on that. Anyway, do you believe that the F-35 program should remain at the Burlington airport? I do. That's part of our national defense. And I actually have walked up and down Williston Ave. And I call that the sound of freedom. I've actually written about this in seven days. And if there is concern with the noise, I would engage the stakeholders involved, the local community and the businesses. I would also discuss my possible relocation if that was my possibility with the military, but I do support it at this point. Thank you. Mr. Malloy, we're going to stay with you. This is your first campaign in Vermont where you've lived for about two years and you're running for one of the highest offices available. Why did you decide to run for this seat and not a lower office, such as a legislative seat? Well, I looked at my career and I think I'm going to be a great U.S. Senator. And I have 42 years of highly relative service and experience, military, government, business. Particularly the business the last 11 years, what I've been doing is engaging customers and listening and developing solutions for mostly government customers in the Washington, D.C. area. I think that's very applicable to how I can serve Vermonters. Across my experience, I've worked with 20 NATO partners and allies. I've worked in Europe and in the Middle East and Asia. I'm a combat veteran. I lead a battalion's operations over 400 kilometers firing 650 MLRS rockets, help defend a nation, liberate an ally, and defeat an enemy. Our country is going in the wrong direction and when I looked at Senator Leahy retiring, that's when I thought. I met, campaigned all across Vermonters and Vermonters want change. I live here right up the road in Perkinsville, happily married. I have four children. I have three children in Vermont, Vermont schools. I'm not disconnected. So I feel I am actually the best candidate to serve all Vermonters. All Vermonters. Not a portion of Vermonters, but all Vermonters. Congressman Welch. You've been a member of Vermont's delegation for nearly 16 years. Vermont remains the only state in the nation which has never sent a woman to Congress, nor has it sent a person of color. Further, Senator Leahy's outsized influence in the Senate was possible in large part because he was first elected at the age of 34, which gave him decades to build seniority in the chamber. If you win in November, you will be 75 when you take office. Given this context, why did you believe it was important for you to run for this seat instead of making space for a new generation of leadership? January 6th. And what we saw leading up to it. You know, no one is too young. No one is too old to serve their country. And our country is imperiled. And when I talked to Vermonters after January 6th, the dismay that was expressed, that this was actually happening. It was an effort to overturn a peaceful election. And the question people ask me constantly is, Peter, what can I do? And you know, each of us had to make a fundamental decision about whether we were going to just get depressed because of what happened, or we were going to try to find a way with our own circumstances, our own abilities, our own situation in life to be helpful. And the challenge we face now, it's an all hands on deck moment. And I have served 16 years. And I have relationships with members of the House and members of the Senate. And most importantly, I have relationships with the people of Vermont. Nothing makes me prouder than to serve Vermonters. And what the challenges are that we face, they're not something that's going to be dealt with by seniority. They're going to be dealt with on January of 2023. We do not have time to waste, no time to spare to protect our democracy. In my view, and it's stated with some humility, is that I'm in the best position to be there, the voice for Vermont, where we respect democracy, where we respect people with whom we disagree, and we find a way to work it out and protect and preserve and defend the Constitution of this country. Okay, so we're now going to return to our candidate-to-candidate questioning. Same rules as before, you have your question, and each of you will have 90 seconds to respond. Congressman Malch, please go first. Oh, okay. You know, one of the things that we're proud of in Vermont is that we led the way on marriage equality. We were the first state to pass civil unions, our legislature passed marriage equality, and that's in jeopardy in Washington. There is a bill that I voted on, that we'll be voting on again, to make certain that we have marriage equality. I would vote for that when it comes up, and I would vote for that in the United States Senate. Mr. Malloy, could you tell us how you would vote on a bill that would guarantee throughout this country marriage equality? Well, that is sudden law. I don't know why that would come back up. I have no actual interest to revisit that. But if marriage, what was it, marriage equality? Marriage equality or use of contraceptives or gay marriage did come up. I have no issues with any of those at all. I want personal freedom. Mr. Malloy, what is your question? My turn? Yeah. Thanks. Vermont voters are well known for being independent thinkers. This is why we've had a Republican as our governor since 2016. Yet despite this independent spirit, your voting record, Mr. Welch, has aligned with Nancy Pelosi 99% of the time who's from California. Mr. Welch, are you representing Vermont or are you representing California in your own political ambitions? Well, you know, I'm proud to represent Vermont. Every vote I make is based on my best judgment about what is the best thing that we can do for Vermont. If you're asking whether I've disagreed with President Biden at times, yeah, I have. He's wrong on ethanol. We should not be subsidizing ethanol. It's bad for our small engines. It's bad for our farmers and the cost of grain. So the decision is not based on how anybody else votes. Based on what I believe is in the best interest of Vermonters. And by the way, you left out, there's been a lot of times I've even voted with Republicans. In fact, I've worked with Republicans on bipartisan legislation. So I'll continue to do that in my reputation in the State House when I served as Senate President. And in Congress is that I want to work with anybody who wants to work to solve problems that we share in common, like broadband. I work with Republicans to get the Pact Act passed. And that was to finally get healthcare for our men and women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and who were exposed to these toxic burn pits. And it was a couple of women, widows here in Vermont. And I don't know what the political affiliation was, but they were the ones who came to me and led the charge. And I congratulate Pat Cram and I congratulate June Heston. But my service is about serving Vermonters. And it is the joy of my life that I have the opportunity in this job as your member of Congress to be able to help when and where I can. Can I make a bottle of this? Sure, go ahead. Sure. So I'd like to respond to that with a specific example, please. Vermont is very pro-2A state. And I have a 100% HQ rating with the NRA. Mr. Walsh has a zero rating with the NRA, just like Nancy Pelosi has a zero rating with the NRA. This shows that Mr. Walsh is more interested in representing Nancy Pelosi than in representing Vermont. Do I get to answer that? Yes. It may show, I actually care about protecting our kids in schools. I mean, what happened at Uvalde? You know, what almost happened at Fairhaven, Vermont? I mean, this is serious, folks. We know it. And do we really need to have AK-47s, weapons of war, available to an 18-year-old? Seriously? Do we need that? The Second Amendment, I respect it. And I certainly respect the Vermont tradition of safe gun ownership. But you know what? There's got to be some safeguards to protect our kids. They've got to be part of the equation here. As we are... Thank you. I apologize for jumping around a bit here. But Mr. Malloy, I have a follow-up question for you regarding Congressman Walsh's question on marriage equality. You describe marriage equality for LGBTQ people for interracial marriages as settled law. That was also the prevailing belief on Roe v. Wade. Several of the sitting Supreme Court justices said as much when they were confirmed and then later voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. So can you explain to me why Roe v. Wade was not settled law, but you believe marriage equality and contraception is? Well, a couple of things. I am pro-life, but I looked at the Constitution and I think for the 10th Amendment that Roe v. Wade should not have been cited by the Supreme Court. It should, that power not reserved elsewhere in the Constitution should go to the states respectively and the people, which is exactly what the 10th Amendment says. So I agreed with that. Okay. We're going to return to the topic of guns. Sorry, do you have a rebuttal? Sure. You know, this is just too serious to slide over. What Justice Thomas said in the DOPS decision is he challenged what's known as the doctrine of substantive due process. And they have this crackpot theory called a regionalism where if something wasn't in the Constitution and the 1700s when it was written, then it doesn't have any entitlement to constitutional protection. Well, we didn't have abortion then. We didn't have interracial marriage. We didn't have gay marriage. We didn't have, you know, all of these things that Justice Thomas is putting on the blocks and Congress would have the authority to pass laws that would strip people of all of these rights. This is serious, folks. That's why this election, the stakes are so great. Can I have a further one? As you were asked to follow up, you can have a final rebuttal. Yeah, abortion is at the states. It's a state issue. I'm running to be United States Senator. I want to represent Vermont. I don't want to control Vermont. Thank you. So now we're going to return to the topic of guns. Question for each of you. If you could change one federal gun law, what would it be and why? Congressman Welch. I'd beef up the background checks. You've got to make certain that the person who is applying to get a weapon passes the background check. And there's the Charleston loophole that was the reason why that killer at the church in Charleston was able to get a gun to do his violence. So I think that's a place to start and go from there. Mr. Millay. I am not in favor of any additional gun control. I believe in the Constitution. I served over 22 years to support and defend the Constitution. I believe it's the exact same oath that a U.S. Senator takes. I do believe we have a health care issue in the United States and we need to increase our health care capabilities. My heart goes out. I pray for the people of Vivaldi and Buffalo, but I believe that's a mental health issue. You're both running for the seat being vacated by Senator Patrick Leahy, who has been involved in a wide range of policy issues over nearly five decades in the chamber. The question is, what would you do differently from Senator Leahy? Congressman? You know, I've had an answer for every question, but you kind of stumped me on that one. My first campaign was in 1974 when Patrick ran for the U.S. Senate the first time. And I got to tell you, working with him these past 16 years, hand in glove, discussing what we need to do, how we can cooperate and coordinate. I'm very proud of his service. And I don't second guess his decision. I felt a great honor to be able to be a team member with him in Bernie that I have been for these past 16 years. Mr. Malloy. Should we repeat the question? Sure. You're both running for the seat being vacated by Senator Leahy, who has been involved in a wide range of policy issues over nearly five decades in the chamber. What would you do differently from the senior senator? Well, I've spoken many times about Senator Leahy, and I'll say again, I want to thank him for his service. 48 years of service is quite an accomplishment and service to Vermont in our country. I also don't have anything specific that I would do different. I am a different person than Senator Leahy. I look to serve Vermonters admirably just as Senator Leahy did. Thank you both. Our final segment tonight will be a lightning round. Each of you will have a chance to answer these questions, but please do so in just a few words. First question. Do you support reforming the Senate's filibuster rules in order for legislation to pass by a simple majority? Mr. Malloy. No. Congressman Welch. Yes, I do. Do you support the use of earmarks in the congressional appropriations process which allow lawmakers to seek federal funding for specific projects in their states? Congressman. Yes, and I do it as long as they're public and transparent. Mr. Malloy. Yes, with limitations. Assuming your party has control of the chamber, who would you support as Senate majority leader? Mr. Malloy. I have not made my mind up on that yet. I would want to meet several individuals. I will say I had a great meeting with Senator Joni Ernst and she would do a great job. Congressman. I'll support the Democratic nominee and I'll likely hit that would be Senator Schumer. Should Congress grant statehood to Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico? Congressman. I'd leave it up to Puerto Rico, but yes, in Washington. I'd very much be supportive of Puerto Rico as well. Mr. Malloy. I'd want to give that some more thought, but off the top of my head I would say no. I don't think that needs to happen at this point. Should the Electoral College be abolished? Mr. Malloy. No. Congressman. I'm open to it. I think majority vote is what should determine who our president is and what we saw with the Electoral College is in several of the recent elections. The person with minority votes is the one who ended up getting the majority of the Electoral College. So I think it does need to be reformed. This is the lightning round. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Back to you though, Congressman. Should Joe Biden run for president again in 2024? You know, I think he's doing a great job and I'm going to let him make that decision if he does, I'll support him. Mr. Malloy, should Donald Trump run for president again in 2024? I would leave that up to President Trump. Do you support legalizing marijuana at the federal level? What about other drugs? Mr. Malloy. I would consider legalizing marijuana for use in VA facilities because if people come up to me and tell me about the benefits of medical marijuana, VA is not able to use it at this point. So I would consider that. Other drugs? That's the only one I'm considering at this point. Congressman. Marijuana, yes. Other drugs, no. Vermont is home to less than 646,000 people. Just south, New York state is home to roughly 20 million. Both states have two members in the United States Senate. Do you believe the structure of the Senate should be reformed? Congressman. The functioning of the Senate should be reformed, but no, every state should have two senators. Mr. Malloy. No. Do you support the use of safe injection sites, Mr. Malloy? No. Congressman. My favorite harm reduction and there's got to be community participation if there's going to be such a site set up in a community and affects other people. If the community were in favor of it, would you support it? I'd be open to it, but the community has to be involved. You know, this is lightning round, I get that. But some of these things require real engagement, so you're not making a community deal with a situation that hasn't been fully worked out. Okay. Thank you both. We'll now offer each of you an opportunity to make a brief closing statement. You'll have 60 seconds. Mr. Malloy, you first. Thank you very much for this evening. So we the people are at a critical juncture. Washington has led us to a bad state of the union, but Vermonter's can vote for change towards a bright future. I offer 42 years of experience and leadership, demonstrated leadership and performance. That includes 22 years in active duty in the Army. I will serve under the values of learned at West Point, which are duty, honor, and country. I will protect your constitutional rights. And any Vermonter that wants to see me will have the opportunity to see me, and I will address your issues. Voting reminds me of a saying I had when I was a paratrooper that was, when you jump, it's just you. And when you vote, it's just you. And I would ask you to think about what Senator Leahy has talked about, that I vote with your conscience. The economy, crime drug, and crime crises are not going to get better unless we make changes. I ask for your consideration and I ask for your vote. This veteran will serve and fight for all Vermonter's. I will deliver a better future for all Vermonter's. May the 14 stars shine bright. May God bless America. Thank you. Thank you, Vermont Digger. Thank you, Mr. Malloy. You know, it's a really tough time that we're in in this country. We've come off COVID and we're really not all out of it, especially the economic consequences. The political dialogue and debate is really making people upset and understandably so. But you know what? We're starting to get things done. The things that we've gotten done in the last couple of months, the first major federal commitment to addressing climate change that is going to have policies that help unleash the market and the dynamic of the marketplace, our first gun safety legislation, the burn pits legislation led by three Vermont veteran widows, the prescription drug price negotiation where we're going to cap the cost of your insulin at about $35 a month, the CHIPS Act where we're going to be on-shoring manufacturing of these advanced CHIPS, building jobs here and creating independence here. The infrastructure legislation that's going to allow us to make our roads and bridges safer. We can get things done. We can get things done if we do it in the Vermont way, listening to each other, finding common ground, making progress. I hope to serve as Vermont's next United States Senator. Thank you. Thank you to our audience. Thank you to both candidates for joining us this evening. That concludes BT Diggers U.S. Senate debate. Please stay tuned to BTDigger.org for upcoming events in our Digger Debate series. We will also have a U.S. House debate coming up one week from today. I also want to thank other members of the BT Diggers staff who helped put this together, including Mike Docherty, Paul Heintz, Natalie Williams, Kate Olney, Libby Johnson, and Taylor Haynes. Can I say one more thing? It's not political. Rest in peace, Queen Elizabeth. I also want to thank both of the candidates for joining us tonight, and as well as our sponsor, the Necrasin Group, and also a supporting sponsor, Nene Nubon, once again. Thanks also to the Southern Vermont Arts Center for hosting us tonight in Manchester. To support our coverage of Vermont government and politics, please visit BTDigger.org slash donate. Thank you again. Good night.