VIDEO: 2018 US House Republican Primary Debate and Fact-Checked Transcript
Last Updated by
Video from SDPB's US House Republican Primary debate held May 24, 2018 at SDPB's Vermillion studio. Candidates Dusty Johnson, Shantel Krebs and Neal Tapio took on questions about higher education costs, the Farm Bill and trade from moderator Stephanie Rissler. Below please find a full transcript of the debate, fact-checked by the the SDPB news team.
Stephanie R.: Hello, and welcome to Election 2018, South Dakota Public Broadcasting's United States House of Representatives Republican Primary Debate. I'm Stephanie Rissler, your moderator. Here are the instructions and rules. Each candidate will have an opening and closing statement. The questions have been solicited from SDPB members, and I will be asking the questions on behalf of our members. We do ask that each candidate limit their answers to 90 seconds or less. We will also give each candidate up to 30 seconds for a rebuttal should they need it. Each candidate will be given equal opportunity to respond to all of the questions.
Now let's meet the candidates. Businessman and former public utilities commissioner, Dusty Johnson, South Dakota Secretary of State, Shantel Krebs, and South Dakota state senator, Neal Tapio. Welcome to all of you. Thank you for participating tonight. Names were drawn to determine the order of the opening statements. Going first will be Mr. Dusty Johnson, followed by Ms. Shantel Krebs and then Mr. Neal Tapio. Mr. Johnson, you have one minute for your opening statement. You can begin.
Dusty Johnson: Well, thanks, Stephanie, and thanks South Dakota. I am Dusty Johnson. I'm from Mitchell and I'm running for Congress. I'm joined in the studio tonight with my sweetheart of a wife, Jacquelyn, and my son, Max, who's a middle schooler. Ten year old Ben and six year old Owen are watching at home with Grandma and Grandpa.
I served you for six years on the Public Utilities Commission, and it was there that we reformed that office and we created an environment where billions of dollars could be invested into energy and telecom infrastructure. Then I spent four years serving you as Chief of Staff to the governor, and in that role I played a great role as the prime architect of eliminating a $127 million budget deficit without raising taxes. The last four years I've been a business man in the private sector and I've learned to help communities deploy better and faster broadband. Those experiences, plus my passion and my values, are going to make me an effective voice for South Dakota. I'm looking forward to talking more about that tonight.
Stephanie R.: All right. Thank you. It's now time for Ms. Krebs. You can begin with your opening statements.
Shantel Krebs: Thank you, Stephanie. Good evening, South Dakota. I've been honored to serve as your Secretary of State. Let me tell you, when I walked into that office four years ago, I walked into a mess. As a small business woman, I saw the dysfunction in that failing bureaucratic office, and I promised you when I ran in that office and campaigned, I said I was going to cut spending for you. I told you I was going to reform it and bring it back the integrity it deserved. I told you I was going to clean up that mess. I am happy to report to you tonight that we've done that, exactly what I said I was going to do and I campaigned on.
You know, as a business woman, I see that same dysfunction in Washington, D.C., and that's why I'm running for Congress. I want to go and be a part of the change. I want to go and make the federal government more accountable and more responsive to you, the taxpayer, just like I've done in Pierre, I want to go to Washington, D.C. and do the same thing. You know, when you send me in to do a job, I get it done. I'm asking you for your vote on June 5th because I am the tested government reformer that has the proven experience.
Stephanie R.: Mr. Tapio, it's your turn for a one minute open.
Neal Tapio: All right. Thank you, Stephanie. My name is Neal Tapio, and I'm not a career politician. I'm a small business person, an entrepreneur and a Christian conservative from Watertown. I'm also a first term senator, and I ran for office because I believe that we had major challenges facing our country. I became the state director for the Trump campaign in South Dakota as well as northern Colorado because I believed that the political system was completely broken and incapable of actually trying to fix the broken government that we have.
We've got trillion dollar deficits, $21 trillion in federal debt, we have an out of control social welfare spending, and we have an endless war on terror that we don't even dare call the global war against Islamic terrorism. We have major problems to face, and career politicians actually got us into those problems. They will not get us out of those problems. I would appreciate your support. I look forward to getting to know you over the next couple of weeks. Thank you.
Fact Check: The Congressional Budget Office projects the budget deficit to cross the $1 trillion threshold in 2020 and continue to climb. Public debt will approach $29 trillion by the end of the next decade.
Stephanie R.: All right. Thank you. That is all the time we have for our opening statements. We'll now begin with our question and answer portion of the debate. Names were also drawn to determine the order. The first question will go to Mr. Neal Tapio, followed by Ms. Shantel Krebs and then Mr. Dusty Johnson. Mr. Tapio, here is the question. South Dakota's aging population is accelerating faster than ever before, with one in seven individuals over the age of 65. There have been discussions that the federal government needs to re-visit the age Americans are eligible for Medicare and social security benefits. Would you support this, even though it will impact a large portion of South Dakota's population? You have 90 seconds. You can begin.
Neal Tapio: Well, thank you very much. Yes, we already have a pathway to 67 years of age for our retirement system. I am very eager to try to tackle problems within the social security system. When it was first introduced, there were 15 people working for every person that was receiving benefits. Now it's three people, and it's going to go to about two to two and a half people. In the next one or five or ten years, we're going to add about $500 billion to our national deficit. We've got big problems in that area. However, I believe that we have promises made and promises kept. We need to be able to talk to those folks that are concerned about this and promise them that the promises that we made, we're going to keep those promises.
There's a portion of social security that has a lot of problems, and it's the disability portion. We need to re-look at that. As unemployment was expiring in the Obama administration, they were pouring tons of people into the disability portion of that program, and we need to look at that. Social programs in general are out of control, and we need to be able to look at how to handle the growing number of people that are on social programs, meth programs, opioid programs. We need to be able to address those completely. I would suggest that the social security for those people on it is going to be maintained, and I will fight to maintain those for them.
Fact Check: Partially correct: For example, more than 40 million Americans benefitted from food stamps last year, down from a peak of 47.6 million in 2013. https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-the-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap
Stephanie R.: Ms. Krebs, your turn again. We're talking about re-visiting the age Americans are eligible for Medicare and social security benefits. Would you support it, even though it may impact a large number of South Dakotans?
Shantel Krebs: Well, specifically with Medicare, of course my mother and father, Mom's 74 and Dad's 77. It's something that you think about. I'm the age of 45, so I'm getting closer. With Medicare specifically, I think it just really needs to be reevaluated and how the costs are incurring in health care, and I really want to tell individuals to say that we want you in the federal government to get out of the way of your choices. We need to open up that competition to make sure that you have the choice and you have the say with your Medicare choices. That means opening up competition, whether it be with insurance companies, with our health care providers. It's giving that choice back to you, the citizens.
Specifically in social security, I would really encourage we want to educate our youth and those that are in school at the high school level, voc-tech and college, to really be educated in how to invest in the private savings, in our 401K plans. They have to be educated now to be able to say we don't want to be dependent on our federal government, but be independent so they have that long term savings to look forward to when they retire. It is a retirement program, or a program that costs us, the taxpayer. We pay a lot into that program, but we also take a lot out of that program as retirees. We have to reform it, but it's improving the efficiencies of the program, encouraging our youth to invest and save now, and then encouraging our businesses. With those tax savings, we can put those businesses back and investing in their employees, whether it be with health care savings and costs for the health care of their employees, or into their 401K savings and encouraging more investment there.
Stephanie R.: Thank you. Mr. Johnson, do you need the question repeated?
Dusty Johnson: No, I think I'm good to go.
Stephanie R.: Okay. Go ahead.
Dusty Johnson: Well, I think a little bit of historical context is helpful. When social security was founded, the life expectancy for an American man was 64 years, and so getting to 65 was really something. Now the good news is, you know, through technology and nutrition, people are living a lot longer. I might live ten years longer than my father or my mother. My children, Max, Ben and Owen might live ten years longer than I do, and so I do think if we want a program, if we want Medicaid, or rather Medicare, and social security that are sustainable and that will be there for future generations, we have to be willing to ask the question. Should I retire the same age that my father retired? Should my children retire the same age that I'll retire?
Fact Check: Partially correct: Life expectancy data in the 1930s was influenced by the high infant mortality rate. For American men, for example, almost 54% of them could expect to live to age 65 if they survived to age 21, and men who attained age 65 could expect to collect Social Security benefits for almost 13 years. The numbers for women are higher. https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
Dusty Johnson: Now, I'm not talking about doing anything to anybody who's 70 or anybody who's 60 years old, or anybody who's 50 years old, but if you're my age, 41 years old, I do think we need to be willing to have the serious conversation about how do we right size this program so that we have it sustainable and healthy, and in a fiscally responsible way for the long term? Now, you don't hear a lot of politicians talk that way, because it's a lot easier to say, yes, nobody wants to shrink government programs. I mean a certain number of conservatives do, but it's always a little unpopular to say that. I stand before you tonight, somebody who has the political courage needed to be able to say, gosh darn it, yes, for people who are young, I think we need to talk about what the retirement age should be.
Stephanie R.: Each of you do have the opportunity for a 30 second rebuttal. Mr. Tapio, would you like to take any time?
Neal Tapio: Sure. There are many problems facing our government. We have trillion dollar deficits. One of the problems that we have is that there are so many programs that come before this that we need to attack. We have out of control social programs in many different areas, and that's why it's really important to focus just on social security. We've made those promises. We need to keep those promises, and I would be strong supporter of keeping those promises.
Stephanie R.: Ms. Krebs.
Shantel Krebs: I know what the answer is not to do, is that we are not going to raise taxes to perpetuate a dying system. I think it's a time that the federal government starts to reform and reevaluate these programs. How do you make them more efficient? That's what I've done in the Secretary of State's office, is just taken a closer look at every area and said what can you do differently? That's what the federal government needs right now, is somebody that holds that government agency accountable and says what are you going to do differently to make it sustained? It's not just putting more money into a program. It's about cutting spending in other areas to make it sustainable, but at the same time, for those that have put into that program, it's worth the investment to get them back out of it.
Stephanie R.: Thank you. Mr. Johnson.
Dusty Johnson: Well, I would just add that Medicare and social security aren't the only large governmental programs that need reform. When we talk about SNAP, food stamps, when we talk about TANF, that's cash assistance. All of those programs can be reformed in a way that I think holds people more accountable, helps them move forward with their lives, improve their lives. Hopefully we'll get some time to talk about that tonight.
Fact Check: TANF is “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Details here: https://www.hhs.gov/answers/programs-for-families-and-children/what-is-tanf/index.html
Stephanie R.: Very good. We're going to move on. Ms. Krebs, you'll take this next question first. All three of you are hoping to win the Republican ticket to run for the office of U.S. House of Representatives this fall. What does Republican mean to you?
Shantel Krebs: Stephanie, in South Dakota as your Secretary of State, being a Republican means limited government, lower taxes, the economy thriving by giving businesses and getting out of their way, and getting the federal government out of the way of business. It's deregulation. It's defending life. It's defending our second amendment. As someone who has stood before you as a lifetime member of the NRA, I firmly believe that defending our second amendment rights is what South Dakotans want and what Republicans value. It's about valuing life. When we talk about life, it means life begins at conception. It means defunding Planned Parenthood. It means that I'm the only one in this race endorsed by the largest pro-life organization. South Dakota, Republicans mean getting government out of your lives and letting you do your life and your business the way you've always wanted to do. That's just taking and removing those burdensome over regulations and making sure that we have limited government so that you can do what you want.
Stephanie R.: Thank you. Mr. Johnson. Same question. What does Republican mean to you?
Dusty Johnson: Well, I think a lot of that is right, but I guess I would take it a step further. I mean it is important to acknowledge that limited government is a core Republican value. Family values, understanding the value of institutions like our faith institutions and in our family. That's critically important. Everybody uses these same words. Everybody talks about being for low taxes, but I think there are clear differences between the candidates in this area. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the public service, as Secretary Krebs, but in the 10 years that she was in the state legislature, she voted to increase more than 200 taxes and fees.
Dusty Johnson: Now, 200's a big number, and I wouldn't stand here tonight and say that all of those votes were terrible votes that hurt the state. I wouldn't say that she's a bad person. She's been a good public servant, but I do think that taken together, 200 taxes and fees paint a picture that is very different than my brand of conservatism, my brand of Republicanism. Frankly, I think that picture of looking toward more taxes and more fees is something that we already have a lot of in Washington, D.C. Other states send people like that to Washington. I don't know that we have to. We shouldn't. When I go to Washington, I'm going to make the same tough fiscally responsible decisions that I made as Chief of Staff that I helped the governor make in eliminating that deficit.
Stephanie R.: Mr. Tapio, same question. What does Republican mean to you?
Neal Tapio: Sure. Being a Republican means that you believe in freedom, the freedom of choice of the individual. It talks about liberty and our ability to do what we want to do with our lives and rise as high as our merits will take us. It's that simple. The Republican party stands for that individual liberty. I stand for people and policies that try to keep a limited government. For example, in the state government, there's been many programs, the EB-5 program, the GEAR UP program, the Refugee Resettlement program. These massive programs are federal government programs that are designed to enlarge the size and scope of government. Government gets involved.
For instance, the EB-5 program alone, which ended up in scandal, corruption, cronyism and death of South Dakotans, ended up with a government policy where we were selling citizenships to foreign people, setting up a business in Aberdeen, a meat packing plant, and basically going in to a private partnership, public partnership with a private industry, competing against private industry. These are not small government Republican programs. These are problems that need to be ferreted out. When we tried to look into these when I sat on the government oversight and audit committee, we tried to look into the GEAR UP grant program, the same thing. We have these large programs. They get larger and larger. They're good ideas, but they always fail in the end.
Stephanie R.: It's time for our rebuttals. Ms. Krebs, you can go first.
Shantel Krebs: Unlike my opponents up here, I understand that every time I took a vote that increased a tax or a fee, was that it directly impacted me. As a small business owner in downtown Sioux Falls, as a child growing up on a family farm, or my Mom and Dad's family farm, as the daughter of a cattle hauler that's impacted by infrastructure, I knew exactly what would be impacted. Those agencies or those organizations that were advocating for it, we talked through it and said what do we need to fix the problem? Let's use infrastructure as an example. When there are failing roads and bridges, we had to do that. Unlike my opponent here, who has voted five times to increase the utility rates onto your family households.
Stephanie R.: Mr. Johnson, you can begin.
Dusty Johnson: Yeah. Thanks. I mean want to agree with Senator Tapio that EB-5 and GEAR UP, they are examples of government programs that, frankly, the federal government didn't pay enough attention to. I mean it was hard enough at times to tell ... You know, when you've got all of these different levels of government involved, school districts, cooperatives, the state government, the federal government, there aren't clear lines of accountability. We need to pare back those programs. It's not Republican. It's not conservative to have large programs without clear accountability. I agree.
Stephanie R.: We're going to move on to the next question. Mr. Johnson, you'll go first.
Neal Tapio: [inaudible 00:17:27].
Stephanie R.: No, we're moving on. What will you do to protect Americans' second amendment rights, and are there laws you will support to keep guns out of the hands of people convicted of violent crimes or diagnosed with a mental illness? A minute and a half. You may begin.
Dusty Johnson: Yeah. First I would say that I am a member of the NRA. I believe in constitutional carry. I'm an advocate of the rights of law abiding citizens to own and bear arms. Of course I'm also a parent, and so when I think about Max and Ben and Owen, I think a lot about what should our policy be towards guns in this country. I do get very nervous when folks on the left, like former Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, talks about eliminating the second amendment. This is not theoretical. This is not some sort of a scare tactic. I mean Supreme Court Justice Stevens really said the time has come for us to reevaluate whether or not the second amendment belongs there.
I would tell you, we do have problems, but it's not going to be solved by taking away the rights of law abiding gun owners. As our family systems, as our neighborhoods, as our faith communities have gotten weaker, as a society we are not as healthy as we can be, as we should be. That's the real issue. Rather than more and more rules and more regulations, the kinds of things that in the past all too often governmental authorities haven't done a good job of doing their job to make sure that these tragedies don't happen, we don't need more rules. What we need is a healthier society.
Stephanie R.: All right. We're going to move on. Mr. Tapio, I'll ask the question again. What will you do to protect Americans' second amendment rights and are there laws you will support to keep guns out of the hands of people convicted of a violent crime or diagnosed with a mental illness? You can begin.
Neal Tapio: Yeah. Thank you. I'm a very strong supporter of the second amendment, and I believe that the second amendment protects the rights that are guaranteed in the first amendment, which is a freedom of speech and religion. We have ability to defend ourselves. Without that ability, really what separates our country from any other country in the world. We have major problems going on and we have to address them, but we have to understand exactly how we've gotten into the position we've already gotten into.
The Parkland shooting is an example of a bad policy gone awry, the same policy that was pushed through in South Dakota. The Senate Bill 70 and 73 are criminal justice reforms. The purpose of those criminal justice reforms were not to lower crime, but to lower incarceration rates. That's why in Parkland there were 40 contacts with law enforcement and nothing was done. The shooter actually posted on his Facebook page that he was a professional school shooter. People called the FBI and people called law enforcement, and nothing was done. The reason is because they had a target, a government program, the same program that was instituted by Governor Rounds, voted on by my opponents. These are major problems. We have to focus on this differently.
Fact Check: Partially correct, with some incidental incorrect details (Nikolas Cruz posted his professional shooter claim on YouTube, for example). For a nuanced consideration of the debate over red flags in the Parkland shooting click here, though state juvenile justice reform is not cited in this analysis: https://www.npr.org/2018/02/28/589502906/a-clearer-picture-of-parkland-shooting-suspect-comes-into-focus
Neal Tapio: Mental health is a major concern. One of the things that I've been very concerned about is the number of people on these psychotropic drugs and almost every school shooter, if you look at their family situation and their amount of drugs that they're on, you'll see a definite connection.
Fact Check: Partially correct – There have been more than 200 school shootings in the US since the year 2000 and according to the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) at least 36 school shootings since 1988 have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 172 wounded and 80 killed. Not all drug use is reported. https://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/
Stephanie R.: Thank you. Ms. Krebs, do you need the question repeated?
Shantel Krebs: Yes.
Stephanie R.: What will you do to protect Americans' second amendment rights, and are there laws you will support to keep guns out of the hands of people convicted of a violent crime or diagnosed with a mental illness?
Shantel Krebs: Your second amendment right is a constitutional right. It's an individual right for protection and personal protection. What I want to talk about tonight is what we've done in the legislature. I supported the school sentinel program. This is a perfect example of South Dakota does it right. We have a school sentinel program that I supported in the legislature. I think it would be a great example to use nation wide, where we have secure entrances, and maybe minimizing those entrances into our school systems with a sentinel program, letting our schools decide how they want to implement it, leaving it to that local control. As a lifetime member of the NRA and somebody that has, of course, shot a rattlesnake with her Judge revolver pistol on her back deck, that's what you talk about is the individual right.
Now when you talk about specifically, Stephanie, mental health and mental health awareness, meaningful mental health reform begins with education. Education is so important and crucial. The next step is making sure that if there is a sign with someone or an individual, that they report that, and they know how to report it to law enforcement to make sure they are aware and addressing it. I'd also make sure that we actually implement and abide by the laws that the states are to require in reporting, that those background checks that those states are to do, that they get those reported in a timely manner. As your Secretary of State, I issue your concealed carry permit for the state of South Dakota, and we have over 100,000 concealed carry permit holders in this state of South Dakota. I proudly issue those as a lifetime member of the NRA, and your Secretary of State.
Stephanie R.: We'll do rebuttals now. Mr. Johnson, you have 30 seconds.
Dusty Johnson: Well, it's very typical to hear, you know, Republicans take after Democrats. Maybe it's not so common to hear Republicans criticize Republicans, and I will. When we look at Congress, after every one of these terrible tragedies, we all talk about how important improving mental health is, but frankly, Congress hasn't acted in any meaningful way on that. I think we need to. We need to be willing to put our time and our treasure where our mouth is. We really can do a better job with mental health and in Congress I will work on that.
Stephanie R.: Mr. Tapio, you have a 30 second rebuttal.
Neal Tapio: Thank you. It's interesting to hear politicians talk. The school sentinel program is a great program. A total of two schools in South Dakota participated in it. The reason more haven't participated is the threat of law suits, that if for some reason they've allowed school sentinels in, it would increase their insurance liability. We have to actually fight these liberal organizations that try to strong arm organizations. The same thing happened in the transgender bill. The threat of law suit is really what we have to really focus on on that.
Stephanie R.: Thank you. Ms. Krebs.
Shantel Krebs: Sure. My opponent here says he supports constitutional carry when the governor that's supporting him has vetoed the constitutional carry bill this last session. I think that's interesting when he's given the support and the advocacy of the governor, and then the governor flat out vetoes the constitutional carry bill. Let's go to talk about the funding for mental health reform. When we talk about reform for mental health, we have to put the money behind it so we can educate and make the mental health awareness issues more aware in our school systems.
Stephanie R.: We're going to move on to health care. Mr. Tapio, you'll go first with this question. Prescription drug prices continue to rise while health care costs continue to drive Americans into debt, regardless if they have medical insurance or not. What will you do to help lower health care costs for Americans, specifically policies that support lowering prescription drug costs?
Neal Tapio: As the vice chair of the Health and Human Services committee in the Senate, we've looked at health care costs and ever increasing regulations on health care and insurance companies. One of the problems that we have is that we have a culture that is over-prescribed on medications. Really, if you look at the health care industry, the profits that are taken and that are driving the health care costs are incredible. Basically, the United States and their health care payments are subsidizing the rest of the world. That's why Canada's drugs are so much cheaper than the United States. That's why Europe's drugs are so much cheaper than the United States, is that our system is subsidizing those. Until we address that, we're not going to be able to address the other problems in health care, of which there are just numerous.
Fact Check: While true that prescription drugs cost much more here than elsewhere, that’s largely because the United States is the only developed nation whose government doesn’t negotiate the cost of drugs with their manufacturers. https://www.npr.org/2018/02/10/584757715/what-the-budget-deal-means-for-medicare-drug-prices Current U.S. law prohibits Medicare officials from getting involved in negotiations between manufacturers and insurance companies; changing this would require an act of Congress https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/11/30/567308250/report-27-things-the-feds-could-do-to-cut-drug-prices
Stephanie R.: Thank you. Ms. Krebs, same question, and I'll repeat it. Prescription drug prices continue to rise while health care costs continue to drive Americans into debt, regardless if they have insurance or not. What will you do to help lower health care costs for Americans, specifically policies supporting lowering prescription drug prices?
Shantel Krebs: Well, South Dakota, the first thing we need to do is reform health care, and that means opening up competition. Health care reform for you as a patient is making sure that you have the choice. Getting the federal government out of the way and providing that choice and giving that choice back into the hands of you, the patient. It means increasing competition. It means that we have to open up selling insurance across state lines. It means that we have to reform insurance providers in making sure that we have the opportunity to let the decisions made by families to say what kind of policy do I want? Do I have to have just these three choices, or can I have more? That's opening up competition, and the only way you can do that is to get government out of the way.
Specifically, the regulatory issue that it takes and it costs to get a new drug to market is out of this world. That is one of the areas that you need to do, is to deregulate or see what kind of regulations really actually need to bring a drug to market. That would help reduce the costs of the drug itself and the same time, letting the patients decide what they want to choose.
Stephanie R.: Thank you. Mr. Johnson, do you need the question repeated?
Dusty Johnson: No, I think I'm good, thank you, and I would tell you that this has new importance for my family and I. I've gone part time for my private sector job to be able to campaign for Congress, so now I'm paying COBRA at my employer for health insurance. It's $1,400 a month. That is the kind of number that gets my family's attention, and I know it's the kind of number that's getting the attention of families across America. I don't think Washington, D.C. has all the answers. I think some of the policies that the other candidates have talked about are good and well. I'm not sure that they're going to move the needle enough to deliver the kind of relief that American families are looking for.
You know, our founders believed that innovation at the state level was going to be a core part of our successful experience. That was federalism. I mean that's why the 10th amendment is in there. When I'm in Congress, I will vote to give states unfettered flexibility so that they can innovate. These laboratories of democracy at the state level will be able to design systems. Tennessee may design a very different system than Wisconsin, which may design a very different system than South Dakota. It will take us six or eight years to determine which components of each system really deliver value for families, but we'll get there. The same thing happened with welfare reform in the 1990s. Wisconsin and South Dakota led the way through ground breaking innovation, and it gave us a much better program than we had beforehand. It can work again.
Stephanie R.: We do have time for rebuttal. Mr. Tapio.
Neal Tapio: Okay. Thank you. One of the stories that just enrages me is when I hear the story about these Wall Street speculators buying companies and just jacking up the prices by 3,000% or 5,000%. You hear it about the EpiPen that is required for some diabetic patients. This is just ridiculous, and I would support legislation to go after those people as hard as we could. In general, we have the system, there's just more and more people who are receiving free health care, fewer and fewer people paying the bills, and that's a real problem for health care as a whole.
Fact Check: For this example, the numbers are incorrect. The price for EpiPen, a brand name epinephrine injection used to combat allergic reactions, rose by more than 400% after it was acquired by the pharmaceutical company Mylan: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/industry-insiders-estimate-epipen-costs-no-more-30-n642091 A similar device containing insulin for use by individuals with diabetes also exists, and insulin prices had gone up by 200% at the time of this 2016 story: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/insulin-new-epipen-families-facing-sticker-shock-over-400-percent-n667536
Stephanie R.: Thank you. Ms. Krebs.
Shantel Krebs: I think meaningful health reform is really education on preventive measures as well. Also is that letting our states decide. Let that state receive a block grant and manage those programs. I think South Dakota knows how to do it much better than other states. If the federal government is going to require copays or whatever it may be, then let the state decide and turn it over to the hands of the state, and then the patients. We have a much better opportunity to control prices with our state managing those systems, but at the same time, encouraging preventive measures and health care education.
Stephanie R.: Thank you. Mr. Johnson.
Dusty Johnson: Yeah. It occurs to me that I didn't answer your question about prescription drugs, so I better go back and pick that up. It is indeed right that America subsidizes a tremendous amount of the rest of the world's health care. Prescription drugs are a key example of that. Our federal government needs to drive a better bargain. Many countries pay far less. Their federal government, their central government pays far less for prescription drugs than we do. There's no reason, with the kind of market power that the United States of America has, that we aren't getting a better deal.
Stephanie R.: We're going to move on and talk about our future work force. Ms. Krebs, you'll take the question first. In South Dakota, most jobs over the next decade will be knowledge based jobs requiring a post secondary education, which many folks cannot afford. Some feel higher education costs have skyrocketed, and that's not even the amount students are looking to pay back after college loans. What will you do to help address the high cost of college and high interest rate student loans? Again, Ms. Krebs, you have 90 seconds. You can begin.
Shantel Krebs: When we travel across the state, we always make it a point to stop and tour a facility, a manufacturing plant, and what we hear is work force needs. Our employers need workers. I think the best way to start with work force development is what President Trump is trying to do, is apprenticeship programs. We can appreciate that he is saying let's get on the job training, or job training for those. What a way to start with welfare reform, when he says if you're going to receive assistance, let's make sure that you have to work to receive that assistance. I support that. A perfect example would be to say if you're going to receive assistance, you have to have some type of on the job training. Here. Let's partner with our private sector and these businesses that are telling us about that.
You know, in the school system, when I grew up in the school system, we had career and technical education, shop classes, welding, electrical classes. Those are all things we should try to do to inspire our youth to pick their field and figure out what's the best program or what's the best career that they want to go into. Then help encourage partnerships with those private sector businesses to feed them in and supply and work with and partner with those businesses so that they have a work force, at the same time, a work force that may not necessarily need a college education, but more so on the job education training or a voc-tech. That can all be done with those partnerships privately. That's a perfect example of what President Trump is trying to do with his apprenticeship programs.
Stephanie R.: Thank you. Mr. Johnson, you are next. What will you do to help address the high cost of college and high interest rate student loans?
Dusty Johnson: Yeah. I mean first I think we want to acknowledge that education is still an incredibly good investment in people's future. You know, if you've got some kind of a degree, it doesn't need to be a four year degree, it could be a two year degree, it can even be a certification program. The difference between those folks and people who don't have any of them is a million dollars of lifetime earnings. Education is still the best investment that you can make in your future, provided you graduate. Stephanie, the real problem comes when people accumulate this student debt, but they don't get the certification or they don't get the two year degree or the four year degree. They have this debt, but they don't have the higher earning potential. A lot of that happens at the high school level, where we can make sure students are better prepared to make that pathway decision.
Fact Check: Numbers are a bit inflated. Post-secondary degrees do result in greater earning potential, but the amount varies by occupation and degree level. The College Payoff report from Georgetown University (based on data from 2007-2009) shows those with a high school diploma making a median of $1.3 million over a lifetime. That rose to $1.7 million for associate’s degrees, $2.2 million for bachelor’s degrees, $2.6 million for master’s degrees and $3.2 million for doctoral degrees. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2011/collegepayoff.pdf
Alternative graph from Social Security Administration shows differences between men and women in lifetime earnings based on education attainment, again with slightly less than a million dollars difference between those with and without a bachelor’s degree. https://www.ssa.gov/retirementpolicy/research/education-earnings.html
Dusty Johnson: I'd also mention that there can be downward pressure that government can place on tuition, but that's more of a state government role, and not as much a federal government role. I would mention one place where the federal government can make a bigger difference, and that is in areas like the farm bill, that they're supposed to re-authorize this year, but probably won't get done until next year. They have a 20 hour a week food requirement for food stamps. I think that's critically important, to make sure that we're giving people those work opportunities. The able-bodied, if they can work, they should work. I think that has a big impact on easing our work force shortages.
Stephanie R.: Mr. Tapio. Do you need me to repeat the question?
Neal Tapio: No, I'm good. Thank you.
Stephanie R.: All right.
Neal Tapio: I'm very concerned about the cost of education. Whenever you give more and more student loans to a larger and larger group of people, what that does is the money goes to those colleges, and those college tuition fees are going higher and higher and higher. It's really a supply and demand issue. When you increase the demand, you're going to increase the cost of education. That's really what people are doing.
I'm a big believer in technical education. I believe that there's an incredible opportunity right now to support our technical schools. We have one of the greatest technical schools in Watertown, my home town. We need to prepare our work force for the 21st century, and that means that we need strong welders and people that are able to use their hands in some sort of an education system. That's the education of the future. I really worry that we're pushing out too many people in college degrees that don't have an application. They're not able to apply their degree to anything meaningful. They're not being able to make money with their degree, so it's really important for college counselors to be able to make sure that we hold our children and their future accountable. Graduating from college and not being able to start a family and to have a house and a car is really having a detrimental effect on our society, and we need to address that, but it comes with maybe reeducating and to technical schools.
Stephanie R.: Thank you. Ms. Krebs, do you need your rebuttal time?
Shantel Krebs: I truly believe that if you want a four year degree, that you can have that four year degree, but the federal government shouldn't foot the bill. Since I graduated from college almost over 20 years ago, college has increased by over 500%, and so it goes back to we need a tremendous ... there's a tremendous need in South Dakota for skilled workers, and that's why these on the job and job training programs have to be with a partnership with our private companies in those communities, and telling our students in those high schools what is the need to get into that field?
Fact Check: This number is inflated. College Board’s “Trends in College Pricing 2017” report shows a 213% increase in average tuition costs between the 1987-88 and 2017-18 school years. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/29/how-much-college-tuition-has-increased-from-1988-to-2018.html
Stephanie R.: Mr. Johnson, your turn.
Dusty Johnson: Yeah. With regard to work force, this is going to continue to be a problem for a long time, but I think South Dakota is starting to get it right. There have been a tremendous amount of investment into our technical schools in recent years. There's always going to be a role for strong four year institutions, but we have made a larger investment into these two year programs, and those are the programs that can fill so many of our work force needs. We have new scholarships for people who are going to technical school. I think South Dakota at the state level is getting it right, and I think there are some things the federal government can learn from the states in that arena.
Stephanie R.: Mr. Tapio, you too have 30 seconds.
Neal Tapio: Yeah. We have a crisis right now in ... I attended the legislative technical institute briefing. We have a work force issue. Really, when I looked into it more deeply, we have actually a drug issue in our high schools. I've been told that there's 50% of students that are graduating from high school are habitually using marijuana. I think this has a detrimental effect on our work force, and we need to address that, as well as education at a higher level.
Fact Check: This number is inflated. The National Institute on Drug Abuse, citing the 2017 Monitoring the Future survey of 8th, 10thand 12thgraders, says nearly 24% of students in that age group have used marijuana in the past year. Nearly 6% of 12thgraders use marijuana on a daily basis. https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/news-releases/2017/12/vaping-popular-among-teens-opioid-misuse-historic-lows
Stephanie R.: We're going to move on to agriculture. Mr. Johnson, you'll take this one first. How would you, as the lone representative for South Dakota, sell the importance of a farm bill and protection of rural farmers to your colleagues in Washington?
Dusty Johnson: Well, of course the current farm bill is incredibly complex. The house agricultural draft was 641 pages long. I bet there aren't five people in South Dakota who have read the whole thing, but I'm one of them. I also have a background with a lot of those programs in my role as Chief of Staff, and now in the private sector. We work with a lot of those rural development programs that are in the farm bill. Now the five year farm bill is supposed to be reauthorized this year. There is some doubt that Congress is going to get it done. That's going to mean that we are going to need our lone voice in the House, next year, 2019, to hit the ground running. I understand how all these pieces fit together.
In my private sector career, in my public sector career, I've worked with rural communities a tremendous amount over the course of the last 15 and 20 years. I think we have to have somebody who's a passionate advocate for those rural communities, for our agriculture producers. Congresswoman Noem has told me there are only 36 members of the 435 member House who have predominantly rural districts. That means every one of those 36 has to be a passionate believer of agriculture. They have to go build bridges with urban people who maybe aren't as familiar with the difference between flax and soybeans and corn. They may not know the difference between pork and beef, as crazy as that would seem to those of us in South Dakota. I'm willing to do that. I have experience doing that, and I'm looking forward to doing it in Congress.
Stephanie R.: All right. Mr. Tapio, same question. How will you sell the importance of a farm bill and protection of rural farmers to your colleagues in Washington?
Neal Tapio: Thank you. I was the membership director for Growth Energy, an ethanol trade association, and the sole purpose was to create value added agriculture for our corn producers. They represented, and I made presentations to about 168 different cooperative ethanol plants around the country. Providing a strong marketplace for our ag commodities has been very important to me. Understanding how the process works is the first step. In that capacity I was able to see how farm policy works. In the house, we have representative Collin Peterson who really is the leader of the agriculture movement in the House, as well as in the Senate. You have Chuck Grassley, senator from Iowa.
Along with the myriad of agriculture groups, the Corn Grower's Association, these are very strong long-term lobbying organizations that I will work very closely with to fight for the American farmer and the American producer and the American rancher. We have to have a strong agriculture background. My grandparents are farmers. My brother's a farmer, and I'm very close to the family farmer. I want to fight for those people. I'm really concerned about the consolidation and the monopolistic tendencies of some of the meat packing plants and these large corporations that control the farmers. I think that we have to have legislation that protects the people that are at the bottom of the food chain.
Stephanie R.: Thank you. Ms. Krebs, do you need me to repeat the question?
Shantel Krebs: No. Thanks, Stephanie. I'm the only one standing up here that's been born and raised on a farm, and I know the challenges that our farmers and our ranchers face. Did you know it's a $1 trillion farm bill that they're trying to approve and pass? Out of that $1 trillion farm bill, 80% of that farm bill is welfare assistance. Let's take that 20% and why it's so important for our producers and our ranchers. That safety net program is vital to the national security, because our farmers feed the world. Did you know one South Dakota farmer feeds 155 people? That's what it's about, is the farm safety net provides the security and national security, so that we are not relying on another country to provide the food for us and feed us, that we feed our own.
That safety net is like the livestock indemnification program that our ranchers were facing just a couple of months ago when they were facing blizzard conditions. It's about drought issues. It's about blizzards. It's about hail storms. It's all those issues that our natural disasters sometimes cause that disruption for our farmers. We need to first of all have a safety net.
Number two, we need to reform welfare. That includes making sure that able-bodied people are working if they are going to receive assistance. That's where you can cut spending.
Fact Check: For more context on welfare reform in the farm bill, visit this link. http://harvestpublicmedia.org/post/expanding-work-requirements-food-assistance-center-farm-bill-debate
Number three, you need to have a strong, renewable fuel standard, and I support that. How you do that is extending that E15 and granting that E15 sale year round. Not just nine months of the year, but expanding that market for those ethanol producers to be sold year round. Of course not only do we need to have these strong renewable fuel standards, but deregulation. Our farmers ...
Stephanie R.: Wrap it up.
Shantel Krebs: ... are over-regulated.
Stephanie R.: Very good. Thank you. Mr. Johnson, we're going to take time for rebuttals now. You have 30 seconds.
Dusty Johnson: Yeah. I would want South Dakota to know that my top committee assignment would be the Agricultural committee. I think it's critically important to South Dakota. I think it works well with my background. I've already been in conversations with people who work closely the the Ag committee, and I have a deep understanding of what that committee's jurisdiction looks like and how my background could be beneficial. I'm really looking forward to being a good advocate for South Dakota and for ag producers on the Agricultural committee.
Stephanie R.: Mr. Tapio, 30 seconds.
Neal Tapio: It's important to understand how agriculture and agriculture policy works, and I really strongly believe that you'd need to be an ally of all of these farm organizations in the state. I promise to the Farm Bureau and the Farmers' Union, I promise the Corn Growers' Association, as well as all the agricultural commodity organizations, I promise to be your ally and partner in fighting for South Dakota producers.
Stephanie R.: All right. Ms. Krebs, your turn.
Shantel Krebs: Sure. We also have open up the markets. I didn't get to talk about that because my time got cut off. Part of that farm bill is expanding our markets. We export to the world, and our farmers and our ranchers have the opportunity to have more exports driven, and that's by saying we need to open up more of those markets. That's a big part of the farm bill that they want to capture and try to pass this year.
Stephanie R.: This next question will look at international trade. Mr. Tapio, you'll go first. If a trade deal increased exports to the U.S. but decreased exports for South Dakota, would you still support it and why?
Neal Tapio: Well, I don't think that will happen. I think that the market place for agriculture commodities is growing, and a larger need for protein around the world, and as long as South Dakota maintains their position as a strong producer of corn and soybeans, as well as top quality beef, we're going to have a market place for our commodities. I think it's important for people to understand that when we're in negotiations with trade with the countries around the world, we have $800 billion trade deficits.
Fact Check: Partially true, according to NPR that $800 billion trade deficit figure does not include the service sector, where the US enjoys a trade surplus. If counting services, last year’s trade deficit was around $568 billion. https://www.npr.org/2018/03/21/595791347/as-steel-and-aluminum-tariffs-take-effect-wh-considers-trade-sanctions-on-china
President Trump is trying to re-negotiate these trade deals because you can't have multi-national trade organizations like the TPP, as well as NAFTA, where we are left out of the negotiating position. We have to be able to tackle these very important issues. The way to do it is to take away and have bilateral negotiations so that we have power. The strength of our market place is power. Everybody wants to trade here. We need to be able to tackle those trade deficits, and South Dakota producers will benefit from it.
Stephanie R.: Thank you. Ms. Krebs, same question. If a trade deal increased exports for the U.S. but decreased exports for South Dakota, would you support it and why?
Shantel Krebs: First of all, I believe in free and fair trade. A few years back I was on a trip to China representing South Dakota agriculture. Let me tell you what I saw there. In China we saw a trailer drive by with reflector tape on it, and on that reflector tape it said 3N, not 3M, like we know it as, it was 3N as in Nancy. That just shows you what China does as they rip off our intellectual property. This is a perfect example where President Trump is trying to negotiate a better deal for our American workers. That also includes our farmers and ranchers.
Part of that may be re-engaging in the Trans Pacific Partnership. He has mentioned, he said that he wants to do that. That also may mean that a better deal may be entering into unilateral or bilateral agreements. What we do know is that we have product to export and there is an opportunity, and we need to expand and open those markets up, and that's what President Trump is trying to do, and I support that.
Fact Check: More context on the President’s call to rejoin the TPP https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602090994/trump-suggests-rejoining-tpp
Stephanie R.: Thank you. Mr. Johnson, same question.
Dusty Johnson: Yeah. Can you go ahead and say it again there, Stephanie?
Stephanie R.: If South Dakota ... let me back up here. If South Dakota increased its exports for the U.S. but decreased its exports for South Dakota, would you support it and why?
Dusty Johnson: Yeah. We can't afford to have a reduction of market access for South Dakota producers. We export $4 billion worth of agricultural products from this state every year. 95% of the world's population lives outside our borders. That's where the market is. We have an opportunity to feed the world, and they are hungry for our protein, they are hungry for our row crops. Any type of American policy that would dramatically reduce the ability of South Dakota producers to sell into that global market would have serious negative consequences for South Dakota.
Fact Check: According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, “South Dakota is the country’s 11th largest agricultural exporting state, shipping $3.7 billion in domestic agricultural exports abroad in 2015 (latest data available according to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture).” https://ustr.gov/map/state-benefits/sd
Dusty Johnson: Our lone voice in the House of Representatives has to fight against that. When we start talking about dueling tariffs with China, I'm not sure we all realize exactly what kind of impact that could have on Main Street South Dakota, which still, every Main Street, relies to incredible degree on a strong ag economy. That's our backbone in South Dakota, and that's the backbone I'll fight for.
Stephanie R.: It's now time for the rebuttals. Mr. Tapio, you can go first.
Neal Tapio: Sure. We have to understand that these negotiations are to save our country. When you have $800 billion trade deficits, when we're sending our jobs over to Mexico and third world countries and bringing those products in with zero tariffs, that's not good for our country. We have to be able to fight and we will. President Trump will take care of us.
Stephanie R.: Thank you. Ms. Krebs, it's your turn.
Shantel Krebs: Issues like this remind me that you need a strong advocate for farmers and ranchers in Washington, D.C. I'm the only one in this race that has that agricultural background to understand the challenges and to advocate for you in Washington, D.C., and defend our farmers and ranchers and what opportunities we have to export to the world.
Stephanie R.: Mr. Johnson.
Dusty Johnson: Yeah. I just think it's important for everybody to remember what free trade is. Free trade is a willing buyer and a willing seller. You know, we know that both sides are better off after they make that voluntary trade. I think we need to be nervous when we get government too involved in the middle of that transaction.
Stephanie R.: Thank you. We have time for one more question. There's not enough time for a rebuttal, so you'll each have one minute to answer. We will start with Ms. Krebs, followed by Mr. Johnson and then Mr. Tapio. It has to do with technology. Citizens of the United States, including here in South Dakota, have been victims of data breaches taking place within many companies. Would you support efforts to require companies to put better protections in place to protect Americans from these technology breaches? Again, we'll start with you, Ms. Krebs.
Shantel Krebs: As a graduate of Dakota State University, we are the technically better college. As my alma mater, we're already leading the forefront in research in that area, and it's encouraging partnerships with universities and colleges to research and figure out ways to protect society and ways to protect your identity. Cyber security is a huge issue. I think all of us have encountered some ways of shape or form of concern. We have to have a partnership in research to make sure that we have the stability in knowing that our data and our information is safe. What better way to lead that with my alma mater, Dakota State University, right here in South Dakota.
Stephanie R.: Mr. Johnson, same question. Would you support efforts to require companies to put better protections in place to protect Americans from some of these technology data breaches?
Dusty Johnson: Yeah, and this is an area I have some expertise. My company in Mitchell, we're industry leaders in IT security and cyber security. I've thought a lot about this issue. I get a little nervous when we want government to rush in so quickly. I know the private sector and technology don't move as quickly as we want sometimes. It takes a little while for that market to really settle out, but a big mistake we can make is when the private sector doesn't move quite quickly enough, or technology doesn't move quite quickly enough, we think that government needs to rush in and over-regulate to make sure that everything comes out just so.
Stephanie, I might be willing to consider some regulation to better protect consumers, but I think we need to give technology a little time to sort this out. I will bet you that technology, better technological tools, and focused private sector companies will deliver better value long term for consumers than another government mandate.
Stephanie R.: Thank you. Mr. Tapio, do you need me to repeat the question?
Neal Tapio: No. Thank you very much. I am very concerned about data breaches and I'm as concerned about who holds our data. Our private information right now is being held in companies around the world. Some of them aren't our friends. We need to understand what real ID is, for an example. If that organization that holds our identification information and our fingerprints are held in foreign companies, we have to go after that and understand it. These complicated issues with data spreading around the world and data breaches are one of the biggest and most pressing issues of our time. We have to understand exactly the vulnerabilities, and we are not prepared to handle that on a very positive way. One of the things that I think that we can do is when you're regulating organizations such as these large organizations like Amazon, who become so extraordinarily powerful, it goes beyond our ability as a state to regulate the amount of information they're collecting. That scares me.
Stephanie R.: Thank you very much. That is all the time we have for our question and answer part of the debate. It's now time for our candidates to share their closing thoughts with us. Names were drawn beforehand, and each candidate will be given one minute for their closing remarks. Going first will be Mr. Tapio, then Mr. Johnson, followed by Ms. Krebs. You each will have one minute. You may begin, sir.
Neal Tapio: Well, thank you very much, Stephanie. Again, my name is Neal Tapio, and I'm not a career politician. I'm a concerned business person. I do business around the country and around the world. We need strong business leaders, people that are not within the career step by step process of politicians that raise money from the very people that we have to regulate. We need people that understand big issues and are not afraid to take those issues head on.
We have major problems. We have trillion dollar deficits, we have an endless war on terror, and we've taken God completely out of our school systems and public life. We need to have strength of leaders with courage and convictions. One of the things we haven't talked about are our veterans and their support system. I believe that we really need to focus on helping those people stand up and fight. One of the ways we do it is we identify our enemy. Thank you very much. I appreciate your support and would love to have your vote June 5th.
Stephanie R.: Thank you. Mr. Johnson, you too have one minute to share your final thoughts with the voters of South Dakota.
Dusty Johnson: Well, I want to thank everybody at home for the gift of their time. I think this has been good. We've talked about some policy differences. We've done it in a respectful way, and that's what this is supposed to be about. It's a job interview. I've always thought that politics isn't about division and subtraction. Good politics, successful governance is really about multiplication and addition.
I think of all the candidates, I'm the one who best embodies that approach. A willingness to build bridges, work together to really tackle some of these really substantial problems that are facing our country. I've done that kind of problem tackling in the private sector. I've done it as Chief of Staff, and I've done it as a public utilities commissioner. I too am asking for your vote. June 5th is coming right up, and I hope I have an opportunity to earn it between now and then. Thanks.
Stephanie R.: Ms. Krebs, you have the final comments tonight for closing statements. You may begin.
Shantel Krebs: Well, South Dakota, thank you for your time. Stephanie, thank you. You have a choice to make. I have a record of getting things done. When you elected me as your Secretary of State, you asked me to clean up a failing office, and I did it. You asked me to save you money, and I cut the budget. I campaigned and I told you I was going to go and do it, and I've done just that. Or the choice is, somebody that ... my opponent who has campaigned, ran for public utilities commission, and then decided to quit two weeks after he got elected and walked away from you, the taxpayer.
Fact Check: Partially true. Johnson served on the PUC for six years. According to a Rapid City Journal report from 2010, “Public Utilities Commission Chairman Dusty Johnson, just re-elected to a second six-year term, will resign immediately after being sworn in to serve as Gov.-elect Dennis Daugaard's chief of staff. http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/johnson-to-resign-from-puc-to-join-daugaard-s-staff/article_00931aa8-f668-11df-9262-001cc4c03286.html
Then he proceeds to waste taxpayer dollars by using the state plane for his personal use and personal travel back and forth from work.
Fact Check: Unverifiable at this time. The Johnson Campaign denies that the trips were for personal use, saying the ones in question were authorized as part of his work and never involved personal travel. SDPB is reaching out to the Krebs campaign to verify where the claim comes from. https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/25/shantel-krebs-campaign-targets-dusty-johnsons-state-plane-use-tv-ad-spot/644160002/
Who gets to do that? Now, who do you trust? Someone that is committed to doing the job that I said I was going to do, and have done it. I'm your tested government reformer. I am ready to go to Washington D.C. and do exactly what I've done for you in Pierre, South Dakota. That's change the way things are done.
Stephanie R.: All right. That is all the time we have for tonight's debate. I want to thank our candidates for joining us. Business man and former public utilities commissioner, Dusty Johnson, South Dakota Secretary of State, Shantel Krebs, and South Dakota state senator, Neal Tapio. If you did miss part of tonight's debate, you can listen to the audio version tomorrow afternoon on SDPB radio's In the Moment. That will begin at 11:00 a.m. Central, 10:00 a.m. Mountain. Tonight's television debate will also be archived in its entirety on our website at sdpb.org. There you can also take a look at all of our 2018 election information, where all of our network's coverage will be listed. Be sure to join us next Tuesday, May 29th, as we bring you our South Dakota Republican primary gubernatorial debate. That's at 8:00 p.m. Central, 7:00 p.m. Mountain. On behalf of South Dakota Public Broadcasting, I'm Stephanie Rissler. We thank you for tuning in. Good night.