Here & Now

Here & Now for December 13, 2019

Announcer:

The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original production.

Frederica Freyberg:

I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” we ask Congressman Ron Kind how he’ll vote on the impeachment of President Donald Trump and check in with him on the new NAFTA trade deal. State Attorney General Josh Kaul speaks to the federal investigation of the Wisconsin National Guard. And an inside look at the results of the new stateside Marquette Law School poll. It’s “Here & Now” for December 13.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here & Now” is provided, in part, by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.

Frederica Freyberg:

A first look tonight at the latest on the expected impeachment of President Donald Trump. Today, the House Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to forward two Articles of Impeachment for a full vote. The first charges him with abuse of power, the second with obstruction of Congress. There is something Congress agrees on across the partisan divide and that is the new NAFTA, the U.S./Mexico/Canada Agreement. The trade deal could get a thumbs-up vote from the U.S. House of Representatives in coming days. Wisconsin dairy farmers are hoping for swift passage of the USMCA. Wisconsin 3rd District U.S. Representative Democrat Ron Kind of La Crosse is a member of the House Ways and Means Committee Subcommittee on Trade and rolled up his sleeves to get this pact up to snuff for Democrats. He joins us now from La Crosse and Congressman, thanks very much for doing so.

Ron Kind:

Merry Christmas, Frederica.

Frederica Freyberg:

Thank you. First, your reaction and response to the two Articles of Impeachment House Democrats are lodging against President Trump.

Ron Kind:

Well, Fred, we knew these were very serious allegations. And as a former special prosecutor, I wanted this to be fact and evidence-based. But I also was born here in this country believing no person is above the law, including the president of the United States, and the allegations are serious, that he was withholding $400 million worth of military aid to one of our allies who had been invaded by Russia, Ukraine, in order to get them to do a political investigation for his own benefit in the 2020 campaign. He was also withholding White House phone conversations and a White House meeting with the newly-elected president. It’s illegal to solicit foreign countries’ help for your own benefit in an election. It’s also, I think, an unconstitutional abuse of power. But here’s the point. We’ve been asking this president and his administration if they had any other evidence, any other facts that could show that they’re innocent in these allegations to come forward. But instead of doing that, they’ve done just the opposite. They blocked people from testifying. They blocked records and documents from being turned over based on valid subpoena requests. And that’s been unfortunate. And now we’re moving forward.

Frederica Freyberg:

How will you vote when it comes to the floor next week?

Ron Kind:

Well, the president still has a few days to offer any information to show that he is not guilty of these allegations, that he wasn’t withholding $400 million worth of military aid to get a foreign government to mettle in our election process. He still has time to submit that. He has time to present that during a Senate trial too if it comes to that point and we’re asking him to participate and offer information that might show his innocence in this matter. But, again, they’ve been stonewalling. They’ve been blocking. They’ve been obstructing, I think, a legitimate request by Congress to get to the bottom of all this.

Frederica Freyberg:

So are you saying that you are as yet undecided as to how you will vote?

Ron Kind:

Well unless the circumstances change, this looks pretty problematic for the president. They’ve offered nothing to refute the multitude of witnesses who have come forward, honoring a valid Congressional subpoena, and corroborating the whistle-blower report that came out of the White House. Now I want to remind people that Democrats didn’t initiate this. This was based on a nonpartisan career intelligence officer working in the White House, working for this president, who saw him abusing this power and therefore filed a whistle-blower report. That, by law, had to be turned over to Congress and we had to look into it. They’ve had a lot of opportunity to refute the allegations behind these Articles of Impeachment but he has chosen not to do that and instead create political warfare in our country over it.

Frederica Freyberg:

The latest Wisconsin polling continues to show more people here oppose impeaching and removing the president than support it, by a 12-point margin this week. How much pause does that give you in your district that swung for Donald Trump in 2016 as to how you vote?

Ron Kind:

Let me say this. I’m the only member of Congress in the history of our country that did support two impeachment inquiries, one against President Clinton and now one with President Trump because I do take my Article One Constitutional responsibility seriously. Congress is the only institution in our democracy that can stand up to the executive branch, the president, and hold him accountable to the rule of law. There’s no other entity that can do that. And we have to choose at the end of the day do we want to live in that democracy or do we want a monarchy? Do we want to elect people who are above the reach of the rule of law in our country? And to me, that is what this is all coming down to. It’s what type of democracy do we want at the end of the day?

Frederica Freyberg:

One more time, how will you vote?

Ron Kind:

Well again, unless the president comes forward with facts that would change the evidence that’s before us right now, I think we as an institution, Congress, has to hold him accountable to the unconstitutional abuse of power, the unlawful activities in trying to solicit a foreign government to mettle in our election. It’s not just about Donald Trump. It’s about future presidents too and what type of signal we send that’s acceptable in our democracy. And it may be a Democratic president the next time trying to abuse that office.

Frederica Freyberg:

Let’s move to trade. I don’t have to tell you there is a deal between the administration and Democrats on the USMCA. Donald Trump campaigned on ripping up NAFTA. Is this then a win/win?

Ron Kind:

I think it is. This is a good trade agreement. Obviously, I was involved intimately in the negotiations. It was hard negotiations the last few months. But I think we got a good trade agreement with our two border neighbors and that’s important. Mexico, Canada are our two biggest export markets. What this will mean for Wisconsin farmers, we’re going to get greater dairy access to the Canadian market, something we’ve been working on for years. We tightened up sanitary and phytosanitary standards so Mexico, Canada can’t block our agriculture products like they have in the past. I think we have a strong worker rights chapter in it, unprecedented, and elevated environmental standards to try to level the playing field for our workers, businesses and farmers so they can compete. Perhaps most importantly Frederica, a strong enforcement chapter now so if Canada and Mexico chooses not to abide, we’ll have the ability to follow up and perhaps hit them with sanctions for any violations of this agreement. And that was important because you could have a great trade agreement on paper but unless you can enforce it, it’s meaningless. I’m expecting strong bipartisan support. We’re hoping to bring this up next week in Congress and then send it to the Senate for their consideration.

Frederica Freyberg:

What will it mean specifically for state dairy farmers?

Ron Kind:

Well, they’re going to have greater class seven access in Canada right now. Canada was blocking the ultra-filtered milk up there. There will be a slight improvement for that and I think that was important to level the playing field there. But also the SPS standards I talked about is important. So that it has to be based on sound science and not some arbitrary blocking of our exports.

Frederica Freyberg:

How will any benefits be felt by Wisconsin farmers a year from now?

Ron Kind:

Hopefully through increased exports we can clear some of the surplus that exists in the marketplace that’s driving prices down. Listen, Mexico, Canada alone can’t solve the farm crisis that we’re facing. The president has declared a trade war against virtually everyone across the globe. That means we’re losing market access with agriculture, with manufactured products. That ultimately needs to be resolved, too. I’m in constant communication with the president’s trade team to find a landing zone for this tit-for-tat trade war with China, with the European Union, with other countries across the globe that’s hurting our farmers, hurting our manufacturers, but also driving up prices for us consumers. Because tariffs are taxes on the American people. But for some reason, the president can’t figure that out. And it’s increasing our costs when we have to purchase something.

Frederica Freyberg:

We need to leave it there. Congressman Ron Kind, we’ll be looking forward to your vote next week. Thanks very much.

Ron Kind:

Thank you. Happy holidays.

Frederica Freyberg:

You too.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now to state news. The long-serving adjutant general of the Wisconsin National Guard is out, in the wake of a scathing federal report showing the Guard’s investigations of sexual assault and harassment violated the law. Governor Tony Evers this week called for Donald Dunbar’s resignation when the report showed, among other things, that the Guard failed to properly report or track sexual assault allegations, that victim advocates were understaffed and undertrained, even resulting in one victim being investigated for sexual misconduct. The report showed the adjutant general was running his own internal investigative arm rather than referring cases out as required. The report says overall “The Wisconsin National Guard’s program and systems for handling allegations of sexual assaults, sexual harassment and other workplace or service-related misconduct were noncompliant with federal law and regulation and in various respects, deficient or failing.” The Federal National Guard Bureau conducted the review, looking at 35 reports of sexual assault from 2009 to 2019. Tonight, we get the reaction of Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul to this and check in on other matters. He joins us now from the state capitol and thanks very much for doing so.

Josh Kaul:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

As attorney general, Wisconsin’s top cop as it were, what is your reaction to that National Guard report?

Josh Kaul:

Well, first I’m glad that Governor Evers and Senator Baldwin and Senator Fitzgerald called for this investigation. There was a really thorough report done by the National Guard’s Bureau Office of Complex Investigation and it uncovered some really shocking details about what was going on at the National Guard. I support the way Governor Evers responded to this by calling for General Dunbar’s resignation and we are working and will continue working with Governor Evers to assess how best to address any other issues moving forward.

Frederica Freyberg:

According to that report, the prior administration at Justice entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Wisconsin National Guard on sexual assault investigations to minimize the use of Federal National Guard investigators according to that report. What’s the status of that agreement with Justice under your administration?

Josh Kaul:

We are assessing that agreement and how to move forward with it right now. I learned about some of the circumstances related to that agreement while the National Guard Bureau investigation was going on. And wanted to wait until the completion of that investigation before taking any action. What’s important for survivors of sexual assault, whether in the National Guard Bureau or elsewhere, to know is that the Department of Justice is committed to getting accountability when there are cases involving sexual assault. So regardless of what we do with that memorandum of understanding going forward, the Department of Justice is going to continue working with local law enforcement around the state to ensure that sexual assault cases are properly investigated and that where prosecutions can be brought that they are.

Frederica Freyberg:

Toward that end, what’s the current status of the rape kit testing at the State Crime Lab which is under your jurisdiction?

Josh Kaul:

We have completed the testing of kits in the backlog. There were little over 300 kits from cases involving convictions that hadn’t been tested but that were — we had agreed to test before I took office. Testing has been completed and now we’re just awaiting confirmed testing results on those. We’re also moving forward with cases that have resulted from that testing. There have now been two convictions and one person was recently sentenced. Somebody who was a serial sex offender received a sentence of 25 years. That goes to show how important it is that we test kits and that we continue pursuing justice in these cases. We’re also working to move forward legislation that’s designed to prevent other back log. It’s passed the State Senate. A majority of the members of the State Assembly support it. Unfortunately, Representative Joe Sanfelippo, the chair of the Health Committee still hasn’t held a hearing on it but I’m hopeful that he will soon and that that legislation will become law.

Frederica Freyberg:

On the lame duck laws that mean you have to get approval from the Republican-held Joint Finance Committee on settlements, is there yet agreement on how to handle confidential settlement agreements before that panel?

Josh Kaul:

We haven’t, unfortunately. The Republicans in the legislature took action during that lame duck session to change the way that settlements work in Wisconsin from the way that it had worked for decades previously. I think they have a responsibility to come up with a solution that’s going to help us resolve cases. We’ve made suggestions as to how we can move forward. The Republicans on the Joint Finance Committee have not agreed to those. But I’m hopeful that they will step up and come forward with a solution soon so that we can move cases forward. These are cases that could involve environmental violations or consumer protection violations. And we need to make sure we’ve got a process in place for resolving those cases because that’s what’s in the best interest of Wisconsinites.

Frederica Freyberg:

So virtually no movement on how to deal with that issue of confidentiality?

Josh Kaul:

Unfortunately not. The Joint Finance Committee has only approved one settlement so far pursuant to that new legislation. We are going to continue encouraging them to move forward but every day that goes by, the risk increases or continues at least that we’re going to have an opportunity to settle some case that we won’t be able to settle because the Joint Finance Committee hasn’t come up with a process. You know, I really think they need to acknowledge at this point that the law is not working, that we need to reform it and at the very least, put a process in place that’s going to help us move forward.

Frederica Freyberg:

How was it that that one settlement was able to go forward? Was that because there wasn’t anything confidential about it?

Josh Kaul:

There we had a proposed settlement agreement and the other side didn’t object to having that agreement shared with the Joint Finance Committee. That was a somewhat unique scenario. That happens sometimes but in a lot of cases, a party doesn’t want to make its settlement offers public, so that makes it very difficult to figure out a way to settle those cases with the Joint Finance Committee, which right now has not come up with a process that maintains confidentiality. The other thing about that resolution we had is the Joint Finance Committee didn’t get any input from my office on the pros and the cons of that settlement, the legal merits of the case. That’s information that would be kept confidential. They just moved forward with it. So if we’re going to have significant cases that are going to get resolved, we’re going to need to get a process in place.

Frederica Freyberg:

Speaking of significant cases, Wisconsin has sued opioid manufacturers. Where does that case stand after you refused to enter into a settlement with Purdue Pharma?

Josh Kaul:

That’s right. We filed suit earlier this year against two Purdue Pharma entities and Richard Sackler, the former president and co-chair of the board of Purdue Pharma. That case is in the bankruptcy process right now. Purdue Pharma has declared bankruptcy. We are involved in those processes, that process and we’re continuing to work to hold Purdue Pharma accountable. We also joined multistate investigations into opioid distributors earlier this year. Our goal is to make sure we get accountability to the extent that companies engaged in false and deceptive practices that contributed to this epidemic and to get funds that we can get to our communities in Wisconsin so that they can have additional funding to support treatment, prevention and enforcement efforts.

Frederica Freyberg:

Is there kind of a bottom line in terms of the dollar figure for any settlement that you’d be looking at so that you could put those back into the communities?

Josh Kaul:

Part of the goal here is to make sure we maximize our financial recovery. I certainly don’t want to give away our negotiating position, but we’re going to work to maximize what we can recover for communities. I also think it’s important that we hold these companies accountable and that we send a clear message that the kind of false and deceptive practices that contributed to this epidemic are harmful and they have caused real devastation in communities across Wisconsin. So we’re going to keep working to get the best resolution on these cases that we can.

Frederica Freyberg:

Attorney General Josh Kaul, thanks for joining us.

Josh Kaul:

Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

In Wisconsin election news, an Ozaukee County Circuit Court judge this afternoon sided with conservatives and ruled to deactivate the registrations of more than 200,000 voters flagged as having moved and changed address. The court ruling comes as the State Elections Commission is fighting a lawsuit that calls for quickly removing the voters off voting lists. The commission instead wanted to give them until 2021 before removing them from the books and says it will appeal the ruling.

Now to an inside look at the results of the new Marquette Law School poll. Earlier in the program we asked Congressman Ron Kind about the poll numbers on Trump impeachment efforts. We get analysis on those results as well as the other topics covered from the director of the poll, Charles Franklin. Thanks for being here.

Charles Franklin:

Thank you. Good to be here.

Frederica Freyberg:

First before we start with your numbers, as a political scientist, what is your reaction to the impeachment vote today?

Charles Franklin:

Well, it doesn’t come along very often. It’s extraordinary. Maybe we’re not treating it as quite as extraordinary as it might be. You know, long stretch between the 1800s and Johnson and then Nixon and then Clinton and now this one. So they’re a little closer bunched together than they’ve ever been. I think it’s actually Hamilton in the Federalist Papers wrote that impeachment would always be a political process and a battle between partisans. And I think we’ve seen that really in all three of this recent period’s impeachment efforts. And the question is does it move the public at all? Does the public come away from these things with some different understanding than they had before? In the Nixon case with Watergate, I think that was true, but in the Clinton and at least so far in the Trump case, doesn’t seem that opinions have moved much.

Frederica Freyberg:

Well, in fact then, let’s take a look at our first screen of your polling results that shows that the numbers have not moved much, but considering the Democrats’ efforts, this seems interesting.

Charles Franklin:

It is interesting in a couple of ways. So 40% pro impeachment, 52 opposed. It was 40/53 a month ago. That’s how little it has moved. And that is over the course of two weeks of public testimony that spoke directly to issues and claims about what the president had done and simply didn’t move people’s opinions. What’s more, people’s beliefs in whether President Trump asked Ukraine to do an investigation or whether he withheld military aid to pressure them to do that investigation, neither of those numbers moved very much. And so the testimony didn’t persuade people. They stayed where they had started.

Frederica Freyberg:

What does that tell you?

Charles Franklin:

Well, it says we’re locked into our pre-existing opinions. President Trump is a deeply polarizing figure and people see him that way and they’re for him or against him. But if this was new information from the testimony, and I think it broadly was, it didn’t provide people with a reason to change their minds.

Frederica Freyberg:

As to the horse race numbers, and we have some in our next slide, it looks like a statistical tie between Donald Trump and Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg and Booker.

Charles Franklin:

This is very much what a toss-up race looks like. Biden leads by one. Trump leads the others but just be two over Sanders and by one on each of the other candidates. Most important thing to notice here is not only is there not much variation in Trump’s numbers, there’s not much variation across these Democrats either and that’s reflecting the power of partisan divisions over Trump and for the Democrats that — we included Cory Booker in part because he’s not a front-runner in the primaries, but you see he does just as well as the front-runners do. That shows partisan attachment and antipathy to Trump among Democrats.

Frederica Freyberg:

But among Democrats in Wisconsin? Because he doesn’t even qualify for next week’s PBS debate, polling at something like 2% nationally. What is up with Cory Booker in Wisconsin?

Charles Franklin:

Well, again I think probably we could ask other candidates and see a similar kind of effect. I think, we– last month had asked Klobuchar and Booker but we asked them only on half the sample. Klobuchar didn’t do very well but Booker did quite well. So we kept him on this time to see with a full sample would we get a similar result. And we do. Now it may be the Klobuchar would also do well but we haven’t tested her full sample so we’ll hold her in abeyance for a little bit about where she might go.

Frederica Freyberg:

The other thing that struck me on that kind of match-up polling was that Joe Biden has taken a pretty significant slide since your last poll in October.

Charles Franklin:

It has tightened a bit. Biden had been up by six and then was down by three last month and now up by one. So there’s some wobble in there. He was up a little more in August, as a matter of fact. So there is a little bit of a tightening on Biden. The others, though, are mostly have been tight and stay tight. And what we’re seeing in this kind of a toss-up race is last month it was Trump a bit ahead, mostly inside the margin of error. The month before that it was the Democrats slightly ahead, mostly inside the margin of error. This time we’re right in the middle of those. We’re almost dead even across the board.

Frederica Freyberg:

Speaking of right in the middle, one group we haven’t talked about are independents. Obviously important in these kinds of match-ups.

Charles Franklin:

Independents are only about 10% of Wisconsin voters, but when you have a race this close, they’re really important. On balance, they’re opposed to impeachment, not enormously, but on balance they’re opposed. And on balance, they disapprove of President Trump. So you can see that they are potentially a swing group here. Not thrilled with the impeachment effort, but also potentially getable by Democrats given that they’re not that approving of the president.

Frederica Freyberg:

Let me get to one last slide and that is approval numbers for Governor Tony Evers. 50% approval, 38% disapproval. Both numbers have grown. How should his supporters feel about these kinds of numbers?

Charles Franklin:

Well, this is a pretty good performance. I think most importantly he had been over 50 with net approval in the high teens, low 20s. Last month that fell to a net plus five. Five points more approved than disapproved. So it was an opening question of whether he was beginning to slip. This bit of a rebound this time suggests that whatever last month was didn’t give us an indication that he’s on his way down and this bit of a rebound puts him not quite as well as he was in October, but still up from where he was last time. This big of a net approval, plus 12, is better than Walker had during most of his term, which simply reflects how strong the balance was in Governor Walker’s case.

Frederica Freyberg:

For sure. Charles Franklin, thanks very much.

Charles Franklin:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

The first of three proposals to change eligibility for food stamps, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, has been finalized by the Trump administration. In tonight’s look ahead, Marisa Wojcik brings us these fast facts on the finalized rule and what it means for Wisconsin.

Marisa Wojcik:

Changes in eligibility rules for federal food assistance, known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, are now set to go into effect in April of next year. These changes would limit SNAP benefits based on tighter work requirements. The SNAP program requires able-bodied adults without dependents to work 80 hours per month in order to receive food assistance. However, some geographical areas have been able to waive this rule for economic and employment conditions in that area. The new rule will significantly limit these areas to get this waiver. Nationally, it could take away food assistance for almost 700,000 people. In Wisconsin, it’s not yet known who or how many will be impacted. Currently, the counties of Adams, Ashland, Bayfield, Forest, Iron and Menominee, as well as some tribal lands, are exempted from food assistance work requirements. The Wisconsin Department of Health Services says it will attempt to reapply for work requirement exemptions in these areas but it’s unclear where it could be lifted. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, who administers the SNAP program, says the rule changes will promote work during a time when unemployment is low and the economy is strong. It will codify the original intent of the program and could save the government $5 billion over five years. U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue says government dependency has never been the American dream. We need to encourage people by giving them a helping hand, but not allowing it to become an indefinitely giving hand. For these and other fast facts, visit pbswisconsin.org.

Frederica Freyberg:

That was Marisa Wojcik reporting. Two more rules that could further reduce food stamp eligibility are pending. And that is our program for tonight. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a great weekend.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here & Now” is provided, in part, by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.