The following is a verbatim recording of the debate.
After introductions by moderator Louis Entz -- opening statements

Rep. Scott McInnis
Incumbent,  Grand Junction

Well, thank you very much.  I appreciate you all coming out today. It's bright and early on a Saturday morning. Obviously there's some competition. We've got our staff out painting some houses. We did a little morning clip. They said, "Are you going to help paint some houses?" I said, "Well, do you want to do the debate?" "No, we'll debate the houses." But anyway it's good to be out here.

Look, uh, this is important. The race this year as you know, every two years you run for Congress. Our district, the 3rd Congressional District … some of you in the room here are not in the 3rd Congressional District, but a lot of you are. The 3rd Congressional District is probably the largest congressional district in the United States outside of a district that's an entire state, for example, like Alaska or Montana. The 3rd Congressional District geographically is larger than the state of Florida. And there are a lot of important issues. On a lot of the issues my opponent and I differ. And I think in a little meeting like this, it's not really a debate. But in a little discussion like this it's important to distinguish what the differences are.

Let me start with by telling this… (turning to moderator Louis Entz) You're a business. You've got a potato farm out there. You have some _______; you're incorporated. My opponent has proposed that any business in the United States, regardless of its size, if it's incorporated, whether it's a little motorcycle shop down here or Lou Entz's farm. As soon as he's elected one of his primary targets is to have the United State government put on your company's board, in your management office, three government officials. And those government officials will help you oversee your business. And those government officials will have voting rights as to how you run your business. I disagree with that. What the heck are we talking about? Get the government off business's back. Get the government … we don't need government. coming down there telling him how to grow potatoes. So many people out here don't need government to tell you how to run your motorcycle shop or your restaurant. That's not the way. This isn't socialism; this is capitalism that we're talking about.

My opponent has also proposed… He says the State of Colorado is a great state… we have the US Air Force Academy. His position on the military is we need to build another academy right next to the Air Force Academy and it's going to be called the peace-making academy. Now let's get serious. We have to have a military machine in this country. We have to maintain the strength of this country. We cannot focus or try to dilute the monies we need right now for our military. Our military has gone downhill in the last 8 years. We need to rebuild that.

Talk about a couple other things. I used to be a cop. I know what drug wars are like. I know what happens when you turn and face the other way and close your eyes and pretend something's not happening. My opponent's platform position on drugs is kinda like the 60s… let it flow. He says end the drug war ... let's legalize… end the drug wars. That's now how you oppress illegal drugs. If you want to know something, we gotta get these kids when they're young; we gotta get the suppliers. We gotta get education out there; we gotta get enforcement out there. We don’t stop our effort to go after illegal drugs; we intensify our efforts.

Let me talk about the death tax. The death tax is a big factor around here …  lot of farms, lot of ranches, lot of small businesses. In fact you don't have all much more if you're a contractor and you own free and clear a bulldozer, a backhoe, a dump truck and your pickup you're subject to the death tax. That tax is fundamentally the most unfair tax deal in our system. My opponent stood in front of Club 20 last week and said, "you farmers and ranchers, you create wealth. You're made wealthy by your land so you ought to have to pay more taxes. "  You know something. Not only does he want to put government people to oversee your marketing operation,  he wants to tax you on the day you die. It's a major difference between the two of us.

Let me go on further. My opponent has run for office now the best I can tell five or six times. He's run for this office three times. Although two of the three times his own party wouldn't even let him out of the convention. And he's getting a little tired paying for this. So he's saying from on now his idea of campaign reform is from on now he wants to run for office. You pay for the campaign. Not him. I'm against that kind of funding. I think if you want to run for office you gotta go out there and raise that money.

Now there are a lot of other issues that I think create difference between my opponent and I. My best guess is if I gave my opponent keys to the Pueblo Army Depot he couldn't show me where it is. My best guess is my opponent … and I say this with due respect because it is a darned big district. I'll bet if I sat down and asked my opponent where some little towns in this district were he probably couldn't find them. Probably hasn't been in most of this district. I know this district. I've gone the distance. I've gone the distance for you, and I'm willing to do it again.

We have another critical issue that I think my opponent ... at least I've never ever seen my opponent at a meeting in regards to water. Water is a critical issue for our state; it's a critical issue for the 3rd Congressional District. In fact, and I don't even know this, but the state of Colorado is the only state in the Union where all of our water goes out…. the continental United States, excuse me, ... where all of our water goes out. We have no free flowing water that comes into Colorado for our use, and 80% of that water is in the 3rd Congressional District. And as you know, 80 % of the population is outside the 3rd Congressional District.

We have a big difference on issues, for example, like education. My opponent believes we should have more federal oversight in education. My opponent believes the federal government ought to be in the classroom telling them how to educate those kids. Last week at Club 20, I distinguished our positions. I said, look, the federal government has a financial obligation here. But the federal government should stop at the financial commitment… that the federal government should not be in telling your local school board how to teach your kids. For gosh sakes. Do you know right now that the federal government tells your cooks… your cooks… at your local school district what they're going to cook for lunch for your kids? That's the school lunch program. We spend more money in the Department of Education in the school lunch program than you can imagine. I think the local communities can figure out what their kids need… what would be nutritious for the kid. And I'm sure we have a lot of potatoes down in the valley. You know we got to keep these potato guys going. But the fact is we don't need the federal government in the classroom.

So I'm looking forward to today's discussion. I appreciate the opportunity to sit down with you and I'm really anxious to have some questions.  Thank you.
 

Curtis Imrie
Democratic Candidate/Challenger, Buena Vista

Lies and Distortions. This is the way politics works. I have been active in politics for the past decade. I'm a Democrat. I'm the last bullgoose Democrat. I guess I'm the kind of Democrat that wants to bring my party back to democracy … with a little "d" … Democrat with a little "d." To me, politics has never been about left to right, conservative or liberal, and lately, not even Republican or Democrat. That it is more on a scale of top to bottom, and the scale if you agree with the pundits and the experts and …. the good lighting (room lighting suddenly dimmed from someone leaning on the switches).

Anyway, politics is just for me on a scale from top to bottom. It's pretty obvious in this country it's the concentrated wealth and power at the top is doing a pretty good job of wiping out the middle class and work-a-day Americans. What we've got here is 200 years of a tremendous effort in self-government coming under siege. Democracy is being bombed by the big money and insiders. My opponent has got a million two dollars … a million point two dollars in the bank. I mean technically this election was settled back in 1999 when corporate special interests auditioned Mr. McInnis and gave him all this corporate special interest money. I'm here to tell you that organized citizens have a chance against corporate special money. It's pretty obvious that Americans want health care. We want a decent education for our kids; we want clean air, clean water. And we're not getting it. We're not getting it. We're not getting it because corporate special interests send gentlemen like Mr. McInnis to Washington and the oldest cliché in politics is "you've got to dance with what brung ya," "you've got to dance with what brung ya." I'm going to continue this campaign with probably less than 5,000 bucks. With less than 5,000 bucks is citizens' power. We're going to beat Scott McInnis like a gong. Because the people want our government back. We don't want policy dictated by corporate special interests. A good man, a fellow by the name of John McCain took an issue I've been running on since 1994. I've been trying this a long time. There's been a void out there a long time. Nobody's been speaking up for the little guy. Nobody's been speaking up for the common man. Nobody's been speaking up for the commonwealth of our radio airwaves of our television airwaves our water air waves our forestlands. Frankly, it's in the hands of the corporate special interests.

And the so-called peoples' house that we used to dream about years ago back when I was raised and taught about in high school has become the house of corporate special interests.  I'm going to tell you that it's no longer by and of and for the people, for the people. That it's by and for and of one point two million bucks in corporate special interests … whose interests are more in profit than in people. And if you suggest that people have a place in all this, that somehow that's socialism or communism I think that's a distortion and a lie. If I'm elected, I'll be dancin' with who brung me… you the people… you my fellow members of Action 22. I know a lot of my friends in the 3rd Congressional District. I've traveled all over the area; I've been to all 36 counties. I know the little towns; I've been in the backcountry. I carved out a living here off the land for the past 30 years.  I know it may look crazy to come down and become a member of Action 22. I mean, aren't those folks just more of the successful folks in the 3rd District like, Club 20… just the business folks? I mean, I don't think I'm speaking to a true cross section of our district here. But I do know I'm talking to and I'm a member of a club that wants to partake in power, and I respect that.  And I'm trying to get all of us to participate more in community organizations like Club 20.

The military academy. I'm proud to have the military academy here. But I think the way the world is going now we could do just as well by having a peace academy. We need them both. We need a military that's capable of winning any war. But in the condition of the world and the global economy and multi-nationals seeming to take over everything and dictate terms all over the world, I think we need a peace-making academy that can stop some of these brush fires in the bud.

On the drug wars … it's pretty obvious that we're rat-holing billions of dollars around the globe, trying to do something about this drug epidemic.  Now my opponent thinks nothing of taking money from alcohol companies, and right there we got one of the biggest drug problems we've had in this country. But I'm saying with monitoring we could reduce the amount of money we're rat holing in Columbia where we're looking for another Vietnam in the way we're putting money and interfering in their sovereignty. The drugs … the drug situation in this country is awful, and we've been trying for years to come up with a solution.  And it's like back during Prohibition when we tried to outlaw alcohol. You can't legislate morality; you can monitor it and get help to these people that are addicted. And we're living in an era of an addictive society, pretty much dictated by corporate special interests again. If we could monitor this, we could do something about our burgeoning prison populations and we could do something about a culture that seems to have everything. We're the most successful culture on the planet, and we're still trying to figure out how to live.

Water. I'm sorry, Scott. I'm the spokesman for the Friends of the Arkansas River. My brother drowned in the Arkansas River and I'm committed to water. I am committed to no more transmountain water diversions. Water. Water? Water's for fightin' and whiskey's for drinkin,' as they say. It's pretty clear that water moves up hill to money.

So I'm happy to answer any questions, and I look forward to continued dialogue and debate and providing an alternative to the status quo.

Thank you.
 
 
 

Questions from the Press in attendance

Bob Schelling, Canon City Daily Record
One of the things that is of interest to people in this district is what the Congress is going to do, what the two parties are going to do, on campaign finance reform? The people I've talked to it seems very simple to them that we send representatives to Washington and we just want them to do something about it. Another concern that I hear is that money from outside of our district comes in to affect the election of our representative in Washington. I'd like to hear both of you on just what your plans would be to reforming in a real way the campaign finance laws.
 

Curtis Imrie:   I feel real strongly about campaign finance reform. I hope it's not a monomania. It's one of my primary campaign issues. See this jacket here? I'm a 3-time World Champion pack burro racer and I'm proud of my sponsors. It's feed stores, ferriers, individuals, so forth. But we're pretty honest about who sponsors us. I think from the podium of Congress that our congressmen ought to be indicating who's buying them. Who's buying these things? Ninety-nine point eight percent of all Americans give less than $200 to political campaigns…  and that's eight billion bucks that's raised.  So can you imagine where the other point two percent comes from? It comes, in aggregate … two-thirds of it comes from corporate special interests. That ain't democracy to me. That's government by the corporations, for the corporations and of the corporations. If we want to get our democracy back, if we want to do something about social and economic justice in this country, we have got to do something about campaign finance reform.

Scott McInnis:  I'd just like to have that jacket.

Curtis Imrie:  Here. Put it on.

Scott McInnis: First of all, there's outside contributions… that was your question. It's a constitutional right for people to make contributions outside of their district, and we need to sustain that right. I'll tell you why. I do everything I can to get George Miller, for example, out of Colorado _________. We have a lot of Congressmen outside of our bounds here in Colorado who do everything they can to get Colorado water. Colorado water ought to be for Colorado people. We got to maintain the ability to go after these people. They are Congressmen in the United States. So I think it's the number one for us to rule that unconstitutional. In regards to the cute remarks … or whatever … from my opponent here… the first thing you want to do on campaign reform is get compliance. I have records. You know what I have here. Recognize it, Curtis? That's a transcript from hearings you were in about a month ago because of misleading document you submitted to the Secretary of State … or even your own party that had to apologize that this had to take place.  I have a pledge here for you, too. I won't do what they did in the Lazzio debate, but I hope you'll take a look at it here afterwards. My pledge says that despite your failure to do so so far this year, that you do two things: one, that you agree to comply with the law as it is now written before you talk about making new laws in campaign reform, and number two, make disclosures. You haven't made any disclosures this year. Now you may not be required to because you haven't raised $5,000 yet, but let's see who's given you the money they have given you.  I have thousands of individuals who have given money to me. Everyone of it has been disclosed. Every contribution has been disclosed. That's a big difference between you and I. Why don't you walk the talk? Why don't you disclose your contributors and second of all, why don't you start following the law? And finally, let me say what I should like to talk about being a Democrat, you should disclose to the Democrats in here that you switched party affiliation three times. And I would guess if you were not successful as a Democrat this time that you'll drop them like a hot potato as you have in the past.

Curtis Imrie:  Can I rebut that?
Moderator: Let's go on to the next question.
 
 
 
 

James Amos, Pueblo Chieftain
What kind of role do each one of you want to see of the federal government in health care?

Scott McInnis:     Well, clearly the federal government is the largest health care provider in the United States today with Medicare, Medicaid and even through the social security … the social security disability program,  the school health care programs we have. So the first thing the federal government needs to do, in my opinion, before expanding into socialized medicine which is where some people want to take this government, is that we've got to figure out how to run a Medicare system that's going to work. Talk to any doctor you want to and ask them, "Hey, are you happy with the Medicare plan?" Talk to your hospital staff here. Ask the hospitals about the balanced budget act of three or four years ago. What about (muffled language here)  15 or 20 billion more dollars … back into the system in the next two weeks to try and get the system on course. It's tough to run a health care system that size. I'm criticizing the government unnecessarily, but I'm saying we believe to get our house in order that it's very complicated. People say, "good, let's simplify forms." Actually I had one medical group say, "Look let us just submit the bill and you pay it. We shouldn't actually have to go through the detail of what goes on." You know if you have somebody that goes into a foot doctor  … could be a toe that's had a hammer dropped on it or could be a toe with gangrene in it. So it's a very complicated system to figure out your charges. First of all we've got to clean our own house. Second of all, clearly, the prescription and pharmaceutical companies in this country … they've got to get jerked up by the collar and there are several proposals for that. Lots of debate in the next couple weeks and intensive debate I think next year because we're in such short session in regards to prescription care. Health care is a huge issue for everyone sitting in this room.

Curtis Imrie:    I know Scott thinks he's got a corner on human wisdom. And I haven't' got time to respond to the lies, the distortions and the smears of his last string on my party affiliation, my campaign funding and so forth. But let me get right to this issue here about health care. Fifty million Americans without health care. Fifty million Americans. Are they irresponsible? Are they deadbeats, or what? Where are the insurance companies that Scott so well represents? With their billing fraud and inflated processes. They've become an obstruction to Americans getting decent affordable health care.  I don't think it's socialism to pay less than what you pay in your premiums and your taxes to have everybody in and nobody out for health care. It would be a great step toward preventing  social injustice and economic injustice; we can help eliminate those with health care for all. We have the worst record of any industrialized nation for covering our citizens. We have a surplus; we have a booming economy. And it's amazing the economy is whizzing, but it is also whizzing on those 50 million who don't have health care. It's 160,000 kids in Colorado who don't have health care. I'm telling you, the social ramifications will come back to bite us if we don't come up with a solution. The health care dilemma could be solved if we all had the same health care … government health care policy that Scott McInnis has got. As far as I can see, we have  lobbyists and corporate special interests blocking  our way.
 

Bob Schelling - Canon City Daily Record:
Back to water. There's a movement on the part of the city of Aurora to take water out of the FRY water rights on the lower part of the Arkansas and divert those to the high mountains which are involved in the 3rd Congressional District and to move that water to the Denver metropolitan area. Would you explain to us something about how you stand on this issue and what we can do to protect the future rights and needs of communities going both directions out of the high mountains.

Curtis Imrie:      I'm just a citizen… a pretty active and vocal citizen but as I said the west is about aridity. It's not about cowboys and Indians. It's about aridity. I've stated over and over again with the Arkansas River that absolutely no more transmountain water diversions. And we've got to think about sustainability and given the fact that even the Front Range is technically a high desert community … and we have to I'm afraid potty train these developers. That they are not going to be realistic about how we allocate water, and we're going to have to fight harder to keep the water in the mainstreams and have no more transmountain diversions. I'm sorry. It's a world now, particularly in Colorado, of finite resources and the carrying capacity of the land. And if we don't respect the carrying capacity of our watersheds and the growth that's coming to the state we're going to be in big trouble. I'm definitely on the side of trying to practice some restraint with growth and if we have to use water as a tool … so be it.

Scott McInnis:     Now regards to opposition to transmountain water diversions you've got to remember,  Curtis, and I don't think you're aware of this, but you've got to remember that a big part of your district, the 3rd Congressional District, depends on transmountain water diversion.   You're right here in the middle of it in the city of Pueblo; they divert water into storage at Lake Pueblo out there and part of that storage process. You've got to be a little careful about that. Second of all remember that under our constitution … it's in our constitution that water belongs to the people of the state of Colorado. So you can talk all you want about being able to stop some of these water diversions but the fact is you've got to figure out how to mitigate those kind of water diversions, plus the fact you have the issues of private property. And that's one of the problems we're having right now in dealing with these ditch companies. We have farmers down there that are not being able to make it in farming, and that's a tough business to make it in. and somebody comes in and wants to buy the ditch rights and pays them an amount of money they never imagined they'd ever see come off their farm, money that would allow them to provide for the next generation and the next generation. It's a tough issue for them to debate. But I don't think we…. You got to be very careful before we go into a farming community and say, look, were going to restrict your private property rights simply because we don't want your property shifted around, and water is a private property right in the state of Colorado. That said, we have the transmountain water diversions I think for the most part are pretty much done. After they killed the Two Forks Project over here then the big cities begin to say, wait a minute, coming through those mountains is very expensive environmentally. And that's how you stop them. You go after them on the environmental issues, because most of those projects cannot meet high environment standards as they should be required to meet. But these big cities look at those transmountain  water diversions and they're saying wait a minute it's a lot easier for us to go out into eastern Colorado. First they tried the valley near Lou (Entz) with AWDI which we were successful in stopping. Then they decided to go out to these ditch companies and buy these ditch rights. So the transmountain water diversions are not an immediate concern because I don't see that occurring as quickly as I see a concern about what we do on these ditch rights. And I think the answer there is some kind of agreement with the cities to get them to divert in wet years and store in wet years so they're not diverting in dry years and maintain the value of the land.  That's very complicated because of the issues of private property.
 

James Amos, Pueblo Chieftain:
What role does the federal government have in helping farmers and ranchers and should it have any role at all?

Scott McInnis:       The question whether we should have a roll or not in helping the ranching communities was a question that was debated at the beginning of this country and at that point in time they decided the government should have a role. Unfortunately the government is now so intertwined with farming and ranching whether it's something as simple or as complicated or as devastating as the death tax, crop subsidies, to depreciation on equipment, etceteras, etceteras, etceteras. So to focus in more … I think we need focused in more on a particular farming issue. I think you should look at things such as the death tax. That really has an impact on our farming and ranching community, especially in a state like Colorado where we've seen rapid land appreciation in those values being once that generation of a ranch passes on, that next generation has to raise enough money to keep the farm or ranch in the family and on top of that they've got to stay alive long enough not only to pay for the past generation but provide for the next generation and have to pay the same repeat tax. So I think we need to focus in. The government does have a role in farming and ranching on the international market and the domestic market, but we need to focus in on specific issues. And the one I'm focusing in on in this campaign is that death tax which I am adamantly opposed to.

Curtis Imrie:     Well, of the death tax  …  can I go to the Secretary of the Treasury Warren Summers and ask him if he knows where is the money?  Maybe former Secretary Rubin knows where I can find the money.  I mean, I have all these checks made out to the wealthiest two percent of the American people. I just need to know the account number, Scott.  I mean, the bank won't accept these checks unless I can show them the money. The death tax is a clever move. The Republican Party is really running on the death tax. And I do think the pollster is right with the incendiary title, but it is actually a transfer of wealth tax, it's an estate tax, it's an inheritance tax, and it was brought in by Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a way to, you know, help redistribute some of that concentrated wealth.  And it affects two percent of the people. And we're not even sure of this surplus that everybody is talking about is actually going to be there. So where there's a will, there's a relative. I've got a lot of yuppie friends who are going to be coming into big money and the greatest generation is going to pass on all the wealth. The Republican Party, frankly, sees that this Santa Claus approach is going to attract votes.  I would simply like to remind you that a tax on death needs some modification. If a ranching family would commit to staying on ranching rather than just parlaying that thing into more condos, that, yes, it does need some alteration there. But the question, How can the federal government help farming and ranching? As a rancher myself, I know we're so proud that we can carve out our own destiny and I could be lying in a ditch bleeding before I ask for help. We're fiercely independent people. Too many small farms and ranches are under seige here are once again the usual culprits --  big money, corporate special interests, Cargill, ADM, Conagra  …these folks that are setting prices and cutting deals that are not good ranching. I kind of like the way South Dakota is doing it. They're protecting the rights of small ranchers and farmers by not letting multinationals come in and run things. So obviously whatever help the federal government could give small ranchers and farmers, I'm for it.
 
 

Bob Schelling, Canon City Daily Record
I haven't heard anyone be against Education. But in the state of Colorado, it seems since we've set standards that students should strive to meet that our schools are not producing students that are good in reading, writing and arithmetic from the scores that we're getting. How can money be put into schools' improvement so that they really meet their mission and is it simply a monetary issue or are there other issues to be looked at?

Curtis Imrie:     Just throwing money at something doesn't solve the problem. However, I would say to you that we won the Cold War, the Berlin Wall came down and there's supposed to be a peace dividend. We're the most powerful nation on the planet. I think we have a military now that could win any war, and I don't understand why our priorities aren't more skewed toward education. Why we don't double teachers' salaries. In Japan, a teacher is know as sensei, a person of great honor and dignity and very revered. I think teachers don't get the respect, they don't get the money. It almost has to become a calling … something like the church that somebody has to be so motivated to raise standards and make a difference in the human condition and to fight injustice, that they want to be a teacher. Because the salaries are pretty poor; not the kind of salaries to attract the best and the brightest of us. So I'm suggesting if we were to at have education as a true value and not just lip service, that we'd be funneling a lot more money towards that, a lot more money towards rebuilding schools, and we'd have much smaller class sizes. In a way, the spiritual malaise is damaging our culture.  So much of our raising of kids has been inadvertently shoveled off on the teachers. I think we need to pay the best and have the best and have every kid be able to either go to the college of his choice or enter the trade of his choice. And we can do that.
 

Scott McInnis:     Now two basic questions that I think I understood from your remarks. Number one, does more money necessarily help? Number two, what role will we have as Congressmen for example to improve education in the classroom. First the answer is money does not relate to higher test scores. The most recent study on that came out I think in Forbes or Fortune about a month ago. Clearly we have to increase the expenditures that we put in because naturally we have more expenses. We have a larger population; we have a lot of buildings that are getting more deteriorated and so on. But do not be mistaken into believing that by throwing more money at it as my opponent has just said, and I agree with him, that you can't improve education by necessarily throwing more money at it. So the answer to that question is no throwing more money at it doesn't necessarily guarantee better education. Number two, the second question, what role as Congressmen … what can we do to come into your classroom in Grand Junction or go down to Salida or Buena Vista. What can we do for our public schools? Well, we've done something. We call it the Seeds program. It's a small program. What we've done is we've gone to federal agencies and we've said, look we've got right … and we do have a right under executive order, and they disagreed with us but we prevailed…. That we get all your used computers or as many of your used computers as we want. We have this Seeds program started in Pueblo, Colorado, now it's growing across the country where we take these computers from federal agencies, we restore them with lots of volunteer help in Pueblo including help from the county, your chamber, your city the college PCC and we redistribute.  Today out of our office here in Pueblo we've distributed about 6,000 complete computer operations to schools in our district. Now much beyond that we ought to leave the teaching in Buena Vista and we ought to leave the teaching in Walsenburg or up in Canon City or up in Meeker or over there in Rifle… we ought to leave it to the local people. Sure we need some standards. We obviously say that you should graduate from high school. We should not be in the day-to-day operations of your school. We have a financial obligation. But you know best; you're on the ground. You're the ones that see them every day. You're the ones that know the needs of your community. All of us understand education and that's the question.  We've never run into anybody in post education. And nor have I. But I've run into a lot of examples where the federal government has tried to intervene in the local school and how they teach their classes. And to the best of my knowledge, it has never been successful. So, keep us out of the classroom; keep us in the financial picture. And keep in mind that more money doesn't necessarily mean better education. It helps, but it is not the only factor.