Well, it's 9.30, so I think that we will get started in a timely fashion this morning. I welcome everyone
who has come to the forum. I don't know if this is your first forum or you've attended several of the
league forums, but we want to welcome and thank you for taking part in democracy by
giving our candidates an opportunity to talk with you about questions that you might have concerning
what they will do if they are selected as your representative for Indiana District 9. My name is Sunny
Lear Camp. I am the moderator today, and I'm the president of the Brown County League.
If you are a member of the audience, we ask you to please keep your audio muted unless you are called
upon to ask a question. So if you have a question for one of the candidates, we're changing things up
a little. We used to have you notify one question moderator. We're just going to ask you to open chat
and put in there
I have a question, and then I will call on you in the order that those individuals announce their desire
to ask a question. We want you to know that all Democrat and Republican candidates
four District Nine in the U.S. House of Representatives were invited to this forum. Aaron Houchin, the
Republican candidate, did not respond to the invitation. So we are happy to have with us today Tanya
Hudson, Brad Meyer, and Floyd Taylor. Floyd is a write-in candidate. So although he won't appear on
your ballot,
If you choose to vote for him, you will need to write him in. Third slide, please. We're going to explain
the format to you. This is an informative meeting, not a debate. We ask that everyone be civil
and respectful. We will begin
by asking each one of the candidates to give a one minute opening statement. Then we will begin the
process of asking questions. As I indicated, put a message in chat if you have a question for the candidates.
And the way we will do it is that I will ask you to unmute and ask your question, and then please mute again.
and we will allow each one of the candidates to answer your question. The order in which candidates
respond will rotate. Response time for each one of the questions will be 90 seconds unless the moderator,
not myself, but we actually have a timekeeper. But if something comes up where we have to extend or
shorten, then we will do that.
Normally, that doesn't happen. We will conclude with a one-minute closing statement from each candidate.
Time will be moderated to facilitate participation of as many people as possible. This is being televised
by community access television services. I think that that is my introduction
And so we are going to start by asking Tanya Hudson if she would please give her one minute opening.
Thank you.
I'm Tanya Hudson, candidate for US House of Representatives, Indiana's 9th District. I've been a real
estate broker for over 21 years, a member of the Lions Club. I help people from many walks of life.
I think that leaders should be accessible, answer questions, do public forums, like we are here this
morning. I've been campaigned
campaigning around the district for about seven months since March when I got the nomination at the
Libertarian State Convention. The framers of our U.S. Constitution did not want a two-party monopoly,
and the current system is broken. But there is hope, and I offer
better solutions. I think it's not just time for a change in Washington, D.C. It's time for major reform.
And I want to thank the League of Women Voters for hosting and inviting me to participate in this. And
I look forward to the questions and sharing my vision. Thank you, Tanya. Brad, could we hear from you
next, please? Yes. Hi, I'm Brad Meyer. I'm the Democratic nominee for Congress in the Ninth District.
Wanted to thank the League of Women Voters and all the people that actually showed up for this. I think
it's important that everybody have a voice. That's why I've had over 30 town halls and many other events
to try to engage with the community. I think that's really important to our democracy. I'm a seventh
generation Hoosier. I spent 25 years in manufacturing leadership roles. I spent the last nine years
working for the Navy on systems that protected ships from missile attack.
When Trump came back to power and I saw what Project 2025 and this administration was going to do, I
decided to quit my job a year shy of early retirement to run for office because I thought something
had to be done. The bottom line is if we want a better future, we're going to have to vote for it. It
is time for a change. Congress isn't doing their job. And we need better leadership. Thank you.
Thank you, Brad.
Floyd, it's your turn. Well, I'm Floyd Taylor, and I'm the independent write-in candidate for the Ninth
District, and I'm running on the platform of direct representation, where my vote is tied directly to
the will of the voters. I don't have an opinion of my own that I should be putting forward. The voters
tell me what to do, and I do it, and that's the entire deal.
Thanks. Okay. Thank you very much. I'm sorry, would you please mute? Thank you. All right. Don't forget
that in order to ask questions, we ask you to open chat and put any questions you have in chat.
Just write, I have a question.
Then I will call upon you in the order in which people designate that they have a question to ask. Well,
we do have a few questions here to tee up for the candidates. Let me ask you, Brad, we will start with
you this time. If you are elected, which committee assignment would you most want to have and why?
You know, I think one of the most important for the state of Indiana is the ad committee. I think that
there's a lot of work that needs to be done for the farm bill, which still hasn't been put through.
And I'm also strongly interested in issues of economics and health care. So those are the main areas
that I would like to focus on. And I think that
of all of that, economics is the most important. We have to start making a difference in people's lives.
Thank you. Thank you, Brad. Now Floyd, that question will be posed to you. If you are elected, which
committee assignment would you most want to have and why? I've given that a lot of thought, and I think
it would probably be the House Armed Services Committee.
They have a lot of power and a lot of money, and we have a lot of military in this state. OK. Tanya,
same question to you. If you are elected, which committee assignment would you most want to have and
why? OK, there's so many committees in Congress, and one of the primary duties of Congress is the budget.
Congress controls the purse. I would want to be on the Ways and Means Committee and be involved with
appropriations. We do have a lot of wasteful spending. Also, I would want to be on the Armed Services
Committee because one of the other major roles for Congress is national defense. Those would be the
two. All right. I thank you very much.
All right, okay, Kathy Rountree, you have a question. Please unmute and ask your question. Thank you.
Yes, how would the candidates know what the will of the voters on issues is, especially for Mr. Taylor,
who would speak to the will of the voters? What methods would you use to get feedback from your constituents?
Thank you, Kathy, and we are posing that one.
to Mr. Taylor first. Well, I've developed something called the Congress app, which is an app that runs
on your phone. And you can directly put input on bills or submit bills for write up or suggestions.
And also, I would do all of the normal means where you can call, you know, call the office or
I also plan on having district offices where you can do real time video with me, whether I'm in DC or
in the district. Those are just the top ones off the top of my head. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Tanya, we
would now pose that question to you. How will you get feedback and input from your your constituency?
Well, for seven months I've been campaigning and what I have found is that the issues that I care about
are the issues that the voters care about. The high price of fuel, groceries, utilities, people are
struggling to make ends meet. I would do town halls and public forums when on recess.
I would make the rounds throughout the district to keep in touch, as well as social media, of course.
That's a given. But I also think that in-person, face-to-face meetings with the people is important.
Even though there's a quarter of a million people that live in District 9, trying to get out there and
be present is very important, unlike the representatives that we have now who
I'm not even sure if she's a real person because nobody has seen her in public, so. Okay, thank you,
Tonya. Brad, pose that question to you. I think outreach to the community is hugely important. That's
why I've had, as I said before, over 30 live town halls, six virtual town halls, five round tables,
three healthcare forums,
That kind of outreach is really important. And we've been to as many party meetings as we can and county
fairs and community events because we need to engage with the public to understand what their concerns
and perspectives are. We also need to be very responsive. We've had a lot of problems with
this administration and the current representative of not responding to phone calls and letters and
requests for help.
community involvement and engagement is important, and also speaking with subject matter experts to
understand in more detail, not just what public current opinion is, but what the long-term implications
and risks are of a particular bill or topic. Thank you. Thank you, Brad. Everybody's being shy today.
You need to please put in chat if you have a question for the candidate. But I do have a backup here.
This question will be directed first to Tanya. What role should government play in healthcare? At the
federal level, a limited role because we do not want politicians in DC
dictating to the Hoosiers in Indiana what their healthcare needs should be. My focus would
be on prescriptions. The pharmaceutical companies need to be reined in. When you look at, I'm going
to use EpiPens for an example. If you are allergic to bees and you need an EpiPen, it's a lot cheaper
to get that in Canada than it is the United States. We're talking about epinephrine liquid like
in a tube the size of my finger. It shouldn't be costly. People who have insurance could have these
things covered if they have insurance and it's approved by their insurance industry. If you don't have
insurance and you have to pay out of pocket, it's too expensive. So if I'm elected to Congress, I would
focus on the pharmaceutical industry and try to bring those costs down to where medicine
basic medicine needs, especially if you're allergic to disease or cardiology. Any type of medicine should
be a lot cheaper and more reasonable for the consumers. Thank you, Tanya. Now I would pose that same
question to Brad Beier. What role should government play in healthcare? The current healthcare system
that we have,
In Indiana, we die eight years earlier, at least in southern Indiana, we die eight years earlier than
they do in Canada. We pay twice as much for health care. And so I'm in favor of Medicare for all. About
half of us are already on a government administered system. Government administered systems have an
overhead of about 1.2% where
private insurance is more like 15 to 18%. It is less expensive and it is safer for everybody to be on
a government healthcare. And this is in the constitution. It is a responsibility of Congress to promote
the general welfare and healthcare is certainly part of the general welfare. The current system, 75%
of bankruptcies involve medical debt and 80% of people with medical debt
have health insurance. The current system isn't working. And tens of thousands of people die every year
from lack of access to health care. I'm advocating a constitutional amendment that makes health care
a right in the United States. Thank you, Brad. Floyd, the same question to you. What role should government
play in health care?
I think government should play a limited and directed role in healthcare. I've written a bill that addresses
that exactly. It repeals the ACA. It provides denial free coverage for everyone and allows your insurance
companies to still have a seat at the table so it can actually get passed through Congress. Um, that's,
What I view as limited government involvement in health care is that everybody gets health care, and
that's the whole deal. You get health care. Thank you, Ms. Floyd. We do have a question from Sherry
Wittenbring. Sherry, if you would please unmute and ask your question.
to everyone. My question is to each of the candidates how you feel about data centers and also if you
would allow one on your own personal property. Okay and that question will go first to Brad Meyer. So
first the question of my own personal property. I lived on a hill that's not going to be practical for
any building. I can barely fit my house in the lot.
My view on data centers is that we need to have laws and policies in place that a community can make
their own decision. It's not my place, especially at the federal level, to make the decisions of what
an individual community allows or doesn't allow. The one thing that the federal government can and should
do is ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency and other oversight agencies have full power so that if
a community accepts a data center in, that there is some oversight to make sure that they're actually
following through and are environmentally sound. We also need to ensure that we have an adequate power
grid. Most of the other issues are state-focused issues and is not under the federal purview.
Thank you, Brad. Floyd, that question now goes to you.
How do you feel about data centers in Indiana? And would you allow a data center on your own property?
As far as how I feel about data centers, I wrote a bill to address the data center issues so the communities
themselves get to decide, get the last choice and the data center doesn't get tax breaks and they have
to provide a percentage of their profits.
to the local community. They have to provide all the infrastructure upgrades. They have to pay for the
fire department, the police department, every service that they're gonna need to protect that data center
or help that data center, the data center has to pay for. And a percentage of their profits go back
to the community. As for how I would feel for a data center on my property,
I practically live in one. I have racks of servers in my house, so I feel fine about it, but I don't
know if I could fit a whole mega data center on my property, but I'd be okay with it as long as I keep
the noise down. Thank you, Floyd, for that response. Tanya, your response to that question.
I'm going to have to agree with Brad. I think the federal government should have a limited role, and
it's usually the County Council that vote to have data centers somewhere in their county. So that's
an issue for local and state, and the federal government shouldn't play a role in that unless it involves
our national defense. Thank you, Tanya. OK, now.
Like I said, everybody's being shy. Please just write in chat, I have a question and you will get to
ask your question of the candidates. Laura Logan, thank you. Please unmute and ask your question and
it will be directed first to Floyd Taylor.
Yes, hi. Sunny, hi. I grew up in Noblesville. My mom was Pat Logan. I just wanted to say hi. Thank you.
Nice to see you. Okay, so I'm concerned about the fact that so many huge corporations don't pay taxes
and are not helping to fund the United States and also the fact
that the waste and spending of the current administration, when they talked about not wasting and trying
to, the whole Doge thing, how can all of that be reformed? Because frankly, it needs a huge overhaul.
Do you have any thoughts on that? Do you have any ideas of how we can take care of that and help solve
this financial problem that the whole country is in? I'm concerned about the snap cuts and of course,
the funding for healthcare and all of that. It's a big question and I realize you may not have time
to give your full explanations. Thank you.
Thank you, Laura. That question goes first to Floyd. I have drafted over 21 bills on my website
at floyd2026.com. Almost every one of them deal with that issue of accountability and spending the money
properly and making sure the public is fully involved in how we spend our money and where it goes and
that they're aware and can see plainly that their money is going for a cause not into somebody's back
pocket. That's, I mean, the tax situation with corporate donors and corporations, I think is a big problem
and needs to be addressed. It didn't used to be that way and we could return to a more sane taxing structure.
But we should also know where the money is going every dime of it. And all of my bills address that
issue. Thank you, Floyd. Tanya, we would now direct that question to you. It happened to relate to corporate
taxes, how to get the corporations to pay their fair share, and then just spending in general.
Okay, we call that corporate welfare and it does need to be reined in. I think there needs to be more
responsibility on the part of corporations when they are paying taxes. If you're looking at corporations
that are coming into a community, that's usually voted on at the local level and sometimes they have
an agreement. It's what they call TIFF and T-I-F-F.
Sometimes corporations will come in and they will build up the infrastructure for the local towns and
communities and provide jobs. If they're going to provide jobs and this and that, the locals will give
them a pass on paying taxes or putting off paying taxes temporarily because they're providing all these
services. Now, that gets away from us
when we're at the federal level and we're talking about other corporations that across the board affect
us at the national level and they should be paying taxes just like everybody else just like the smaller
businesses the percentage of the taxes they pay should coincide with that and I know it's complicated
and we could
probably spend 15 minutes just talking about that, but just trying to sum it up. As a member of Congress,
I would work on making sure that businesses pay what they should be paying in taxes. Thank you, Tonya.
Brad, would you like to address this? Several decades ago, corporate taxes accounted for a much higher
percentage of our total budget. And as that has been pulled down, our deficit has continued to increase.
She asked a very large question. I'm going to expand it a little bit further. Congress and our representative
in particular has gone out of their way to cater to the interests and needs and desires of big businesses
against the interests of the average person. We have a 20% food insecurity rate for children in southern Indiana.
And they cut funding for food aid and CHIP. We have a lot of people that need it, dependent on Medicare
and Medicaid, and they're cutting that. So they're doing everything they can to support big businesses
at the expense, budgetarily at the expense of people.
And the results of all of these things over the years, when I was 30 years old, the odds I was doing
better than my parents was 65%. Now it's less than 50% of 30 year olds are doing better than their parents
were when their parents were 30. Opportunity is being squeezed out by intentional acts of Congress.
And we need to start focusing on what's gonna make America and the people in it stronger
instead of focusing on what's going to make big businesses have bigger profits. Thank you very much.
Well, I think some people's morning coffee kicked in, so we've got some questions. Mary Ann Williams,
would you please unmute and ask your question, and it will be directed first to Tanya. Good morning,
everybody. I'm Mary Ann Williams, and my question relates to government.
accountability. Could you please comment on whether you would support impeachments for the many crimes
that have been committed by government officials in the last few years or other means of holding them
accountable? Thank you, Marianne. Tanya, would you like to address that question? The answer is yes.
If we have
elected officials who are breaking the law, doing unconstitutional acts, then that is a consideration,
impeachment. Also, the people are responsible for electing their officials, and if they're not happy
with what their officials are doing, then vote them out.
seem to have politicians that get reelected and they're not serving the people as they should. And the
people seem to be mom or not paying attention. We've got people here and the person that just asked
the question is obviously involved in paying attention. Good for her. But we have so many people that
are clueless about what's going on. But to answer the question, yes, I would consider impeachment if
the situation warranted that.
the same question directed to you. Yes, we need to hold people accountable so that we don't continue
to have the messes that we're facing right now. Having said that, we need to make sure that it's done
in a way that is public and that the public has confidence that it's not being done out of political
vengeance or retribution, that it's done out of a search for justice. That's one of the things, that's
one of the reasons that Trump is back today is because
there was not enough of a public hearing that the people began to see and understand that it was a search
for justice instead of vengeance against a political opponent. And we have to avoid the fact or the
appearance of that in order for this to work. Thank you. Thank you, Brad. Floyd, would you like to address
this question related to consequences for perhaps people in office who
have taken advantage of their position. Well, my position is, if you break the law, you should be in
jail. If you're a convicted felon, you should not be able to take public office. That's my position.
Go to jail. Thank you. OK, our next question will come from Maggie Phipps. Maggie, if you would please
unmute and ask your question. And it would be directed first to Brad Myers. Okay, on the same point
of accountability, what is your stance on campaign finance reform and implementing stricter lobbying
restrictions for members of Congress? Thank you, Maggie. Brad, if you could respond first.
So there are a lot of things that need to be done. Number one, we need to find a way to address Citizens
United, which has been horribly influential in injecting money into this, into campaigns. We also need
tighter ethics controls so that we shouldn't be allowed to trade individual stocks in Congress.
and we need tighter ethics controls on the Supreme Court, which right now seems to be able to do whatever
they dang well please. Thank you, Brad. Floyd, we would now direct that question to you. Well,
being said, I'm running an entirely self-funded campaign. I am all for campaign finance reform.
It would be nice if the federal government just said, well, if you're running for office, you get to
spend this much money across the board. Everybody gets to fix them out, have fun. Thank you, Floyd.
Tanya, would you like to address that question? Yes, Citizens United definitely set a bad precedent.
We do need to rein in
the amount of money that people get from huge donors. The PAC money that a lot of the politicians get
is huge. You scratch my back, I'll scratch your back. We know there's behind the scenes favoritism going
on and that needs to stop. It's not fair to the people running for office who are
of limited means like me. My campaign donations were minimal compared to others. So I understand that
you can work hard and talk to people and travel around the district. But it's easier to do that if you're
someone that has a lot of money. But we do have a problem with donors that don't even live in the district,
don't even live in our state.
that are given money to, for example, our incumbent who's not here today to defend her record and the
donations that she's received that she probably shouldn't have. Okay. Thank you very much, Tonya. The
next person with a question is Penny Giffins. Penny, if you would please unmute
and ask your question. It will be directed first to Floyd Taylor. Thank you and good morning to everyone.
I'd like to know where each of the candidates stands on term limits for the Supreme Court. Thank you.
Floyd. I think term limits for the Supreme Court are a great idea. I don't think any office should be
for life. I mean,
I wouldn't even want to do this job for life. But yeah, for life is a bad, bad precedent. Maybe 10,
12 years. But yeah, I'm all for term limits. Okay, I'm going to tag on to that question. Do you feel
like there should be either a term limit and or an age limit?
Term limits, I'm fine with age limits. I'm kind of iffy on because I'm getting up there myself. Maybe
some kind of actual cognitive test past a certain point, not one that just determines whether or not
you can change your own diapers, but one that actually measures your IQ or your intelligence.
Thank you, Floyd. Tanya, I'll address that question to you.
Yes, I am for term limits across the board. The Supreme Court should only be there for a limited amount
of time, and that should be determined, I think, by Congress. That should be debated and voted on. I'm
also for term limits for Congress, and I signed my own term limits pledge
Unlike a lot of other politicians, they sign a pledge that says, if it comes to the floor of the House
for a vote, yes, I would co-sponsor or vote on knowing that it's never going to be on the floor of the
House for a vote. It hasn't. They don't do it. So I signed my own pledge term limiting myself.
to two terms, which would be four years, because four years in Congress is enough. If you can't get
something done in four years, you probably shouldn't be running in the first place. So I've signed a
real term limits pledge. Now, if somebody wanted to say, I'll sign a pledge that I will do three terms,
six years, not if it gets to the floor of the House, because I don't need a law to tell me about term
limits. So yes, I think the Supreme Court should have term limits as well as Congress.
Thank you, Tonya. Brad will allow you to answer that question now. So I think term limits for the Supreme
Court is a good idea. However, it would have to require a constitutional amendment. It's not something
that Congress can address. It has to be done through a constitutional amendment. You talked about age.
I just put out a post kind of poking fun of the age of some of the people in Congress. But I'm not comfortable
saying, you know, if you're 80 years old, you can't be in this office anymore. You know, it would be
nice if we could have a cognitive test. But if we had a cognitive test, you've seen what Trump has done
to manipulate things. If we had one today, he would find a way to throw out every Democrat using a cognitive
test. So that's a slippery slope that we need to be careful on. As far as a pledge, I joined a group called
take back Congress. And one of the things in there is a 12-year, a pledge of a 12-year limit. I'm thinking
I would rather be in six years, not 12 years. Thank you, Brad. OK. We are ready for our next person
who is in line to have a question. And please, I'm encouraging everybody in the audience. This is the
last one that I, the last
question from the audience that I have in chat. So please be signing up if you have a question. Shahana,
I'm sorry. Yes, unmute and please ask your question. It will be directed first to Tanya. Hi, thanks
everyone for being here for this forum. It's really helpful. My concern and question are around voting
access and voting rights.
I am wondering what you all think about the new Indiana voting laws, the ID laws that we have now. I'm
curious who you think should be an eligible voter in our democracy and what obstacles are reasonable
for eligible voters to be able to access.
submitting their ballot. That's my question. Thank you. Thank you, Shahana. Tanya, would you like to
respond to that question first? Yes, Indiana does have the voter ID requirement. You just have to show
your license or ID when you go vote just to prove who you are. But unlike the SAVE Act, which would
have required more documentation and would have made it difficult
Fortunately, the Save Act died. It didn't go anywhere, so I'm hoping that that stays that way.
Simple ID, just to prove who you are when you go vote, I think is reasonable, but I don't think you
should have to jump through hoops when voting is your right. So that's where I'm at on that. I haven't
seen any widespread voter fraud in Indiana. At least it's not been reported that way.
Thank you, Tonya. Brad, would you like to address that question? Sure. So voting should be as easy as
possible without introducing an excessive risk of fraud. The fact is that the federal government now
is going to be enrolling people in for the selective service.
and they don't have to do anything. So the government actually knows who's a citizen, who's not a citizen.
I think that the current system, which right now in Indiana is very easy to register to vote.
By the way, you need to register to vote. If you are not registered to vote, it's important you do that
because Monday is the last day that you can register before voting. The SAVE Act was just an intentional
barrier that they were trying to add.
And Indiana has a very low voter turnout and they suppress the vote well enough without the other gimmicks
they're trying to do. The state issues an ID to students, but you can't use that. In the SAVE Act, the
state issues a driver's license, but you wouldn't be able to use an Indiana state driver's license because
it doesn't denote whether you're a US citizen or not.
All of these are just attempts to make it harder to vote. That is their intention. They want to suppress
democracy. Thank you, Brad. Floyd, you may respond to that question. I think anybody who lives in the
9th District should be able to vote. Voting should be easy. It's pretty easy now. You just walk in,
you show your ID, and
you vote is for registering to vote. The best I would be able to restrict it is maybe I nine level.
You know, everybody has to fill out an I nine. So if you have to fill it out to register to vote, I'd
be okay with that. Um, as far as who gets input, I, my Congress app allows anybody of any age to have
an input. So,
You don't have to be a registered voter. You don't even have to be 18. If you can get access to a computer,
you can weigh in, you can have your voice heard. Well, that's my position on it. Okay. Thank you, Floyd.
Okay. Rosemary Doherty.
has a question. Rosemary, would you please unmute and ask your question? It will be directed first to
Brad Meyer. Hi, and thank you. I think that gerrymandering has a real squelching effect on democracy,
and I'm wondering if there's a role at the federal level in making that illegal. Thank you.
Thank you, Rosemary. Brad, how would you like to respond? So there actually is the ability at the federal
level to make gerrymandering illegal, and I think it should be illegal. We should be trying to make
democracy work as well as possible for everybody instead of trying to manipulate it, where politicians
should be picked by their voter instead of the politicians picking their voter.
This is an anti-democratic thing. And we've seen the results of this, that about half of people in the
United States are Democrat or tend to vote Democrat and half tend to vote Republican. And we have these
lopsided victories.
basically because of gerrymandering. And you've got to credit the people of Indiana for standing up
in this last attempt to gerrymander out of cycle. I think that that is a good example of democracy in
action. Lloyd, that question to you. Yeah, the bill to end gerrymandering has come up in Congress multiple
times by both parties, and neither
party could seem to get it passed. It would seem to be something that maybe when both parties lose control
of the House and Senate, that we could get done. And it needs to be done. But so far, nobody's been
able to do it. Tanya, would you like to respond to the question about gerrymandering?
Well, I agree there shouldn't be gerrymandering and we've had issues here in the state of Indiana as
well. And I remember what District 9 used to look like when I ran for Congress before in 2020 if there
were 14 counties and then when they did the redistricting some people can call it gerrymandering. It
went from 14 counties to.
17 counties plus a third of Bartholomew if you want to say 18 counties but two-thirds of Bartholomew
is in district six. So but article four of the constitution goes with states rights so I don't think
at the federal level we should dictate to the states on how they structure their state and the voters
need to hold their representatives accountable in the state of Indiana if they don't like the gerrymandering
in the Hoosier state. Okay. Thank you all three very much. And we now have a question from Laura Logan.
Laura, if you would unmute and ask your question and it will be addressed first to Floyd Taylor. Thank you.
I'm just running through issues that are currently being discussed. And I wonder what your opinions
are on regulating AI. Thank you. Thank you, Floyd. You get to address that one first. That's a really
interesting question. I've thought about it quite a bit because I personally use AI in my work.
And quite a bit, it's a very helpful tool for me. As far as regulating it, I kind of take the gun position
on that one. If AI is illegal, then only people who don't follow the law will have AI. And you could
only regulate so much. My position would be,
would be that we have some kind of guidance, some kind of ethical guidelines, but as far as regulating
it, I don't think that's possible because we can't regulate what other countries do. Okay, Tanya, would
you like to address that question? Yes, that is a conundrum.
If you use AI, the system, the AI system has access to your personal data that you are sometimes unaware
of. I think the people need to be educated on exactly what artificial intelligence can do when you use
it and how they use your data and store it. So like,
Floyd mentioned he uses AI well when he uses AI, the information he's getting from AI was data obtained
from other people who used AI and that data is stored in this bigger system, and I'm not a computer
software person.
but I understand it enough to know that it can be dangerous if the people are not aware of what it can
and cannot do. So I think at the federal level, we need to educate the people on artificial intelligence,
the benefits as well as the dangers of it. Thank you, Tanya. Brad?
I have a master's degree in electrical and computer engineering. So I've got some interest and background
in the technical side. And, but actually you start out and the first thing that we need to do is secure
data rights for individuals and that's privacy rights. So your data should not be used and sold the
way it's being done now. And in Europe, they have laws that restrict data access and in the United States because
Our Congresswoman and the rest of Congress sides with big business. They have allowed these things to
happen where they're selling your data and using your data in ways that you're not even aware of. We
need protections against deep fakes that right now the laws for slander and liabilities don't really
protect as well as they should against deep fakes. They need to be very clear.
And there's also issues of safety with AI that, you know, in the military, they had a rule that said
that AI cannot be used for the final decision to fire on a target. A human had to do that. They're trying
to repeal that. There's a lot of scary things going on where we're giving away our safety to AI and
we're trusting it too much. And there isn't
the kind of oversight to ensure the safety and privacy that needs to be. Thank you very much, Brad.
Kathy Bramtree has a question. Kathy, if you would please unmute and ask your question and it will be
directed first to Tanya. Thanks again, everyone, for being here.
Could you please speak to the current tactics and policy that ICE is using in our country? What do you
think of this and how would you change it? Thank you, Kathy, Tonya. Yeah, that falls under Homeland
Security. I've been disturbed by some of the things that I've seen on the news where
the brow beating, the physical assault on our citizens, and even people who are visiting our country.
We do have a problem with our immigration policy needs to be more streamlined. We do need to make it
easier for migrant workers to be able to come into this country legally, because right now the system
is archaic.
It's cumbersome. We have bottlenecked lines at points of entry. I think we need to add a couple more
points of entry and streamline the process to make it easier. I think ICE needs to be limited in their
role when they are looking for what they call illegal aliens.
I think there's, in some ways, they do have a role, but they have gone above and beyond what their authority
is, as we've witnessed on some of the newsreels that we've seen. So I think Congress does need to do
a better job in monitoring that, and they need to have hearings on it, quite frankly, and there needs
to be some changes made. Thank you, Tonya. Brad, would you like to address that question?
Yes, ma'am. So the questioner actually used the word tactics, and I think that that is important. They
are trying to solve a strategic problem tactically.
And the policy that they're putting in place doesn't match our values. And the only way that they'll
be able to meet the goals set by the president and accepted by Congress is through ever-increasing brutality.
And that can't be allowed. What we really need is a strategic answer to the problem that's been going
on for 40 years. And we've been stuck. And the answer is we need to first look at this as an economic problem.
We need more workers in the United States. That is the draw for people coming from the outside. And
if we need X number of people, then we need to issue X number of visas in a way that we can bring the
people in legally and with good oversight into the United States. Tanya agreed with me earlier on something.
I'll return the favor. I think Tanya was very correct in the things she said. But I would say we need
to go further to say,
Economically, we need to address this problem to bring in the workers because it's good for the United
States. It's a need that we have that people want to come in and work. And we need to end the practice
of illegal hiring. So when you watch 30 people being marched out of a chicken plant, those people that
worked committed a misdemeanor. The people that intentionally hired them committed a federal felony.
And that is the economic engine that's driving this whole problem.
Thank you, Brad. Floyd, would you like to address that question? Not really, but I will. ICE was a lot
more effective when they wore windbreakers and slacks. They did a better job. They deported more people.
They don't need to be dressed like stormtroopers. They don't need military gear. They don't need tear gas.
Hate to say it, but I agree with Brad on the ultimate responsibility for illegal immigration that lies
with the employers, not with the employees. And we need to enforce that. Thank you. Thank you, all three
of you, for taking those tough questions. And right now, I don't have anyone else in the queue.
Please be reminded if one of you has a question, just put, I have a question in chat. But I do have
some backup questions here in case this happens. The next question will be directed first to Brad. What
is your view on congressional war powers and the war in Iran? Sorry, I just realized I don't have power.
There we go. Sorry.
So, Congress has completely abdicated their responsibility for oversight in war powers. We took over
a country because they had oil and we wanted it. And now we've attacked Iran, who also has oil, so there's
a pattern forming here. And Congress did nothing. They said nothing.
You could, if you hold your mouth right, pretend that the War Powers Act gave the president
that authorization. But the fact is, is that this was a major strategic move. And ethically, there was
a responsibility to engage Congress so that the will of the people could be reflected, because I'm not
sure that it would have passed. And that's why Trump didn't go to Congress.
because he didn't want the answer. He didn't want to hear the people's voice. And Congress should have
responded back. And our Congresswoman, Erin Houchin, voted in favor of the Iran war when it finally
did come up. She should have been much more active to represent the interests of the people. And we've
gotten into the habit of being a little bit too permissive with presidential power, and that needs to
be dialed back.
Thank you, Brad. Floyd, would you like to address that question, please? Sure. Much like Brad said,
Congress itself has advocated the War Powers Act. They don't use it like they should. And these wars
are wrong. All wars are wrong. But the ones we're in recently are wrong to the 10th degree. I mean,
Congress should stop it.
It should have been stopped a long time ago. They should never have let the president order these wars.
And yeah, that's my whole opinion on it. It's just wrong. Thank you, Floyd. Tonya, would you like to
address that question? Yes, the AUMF authorization to use military force has been abused by this president.
The attack on Iran was an illegal
war. It was not authorized by Congress. Even the premise, Iran didn't have a nuclear weapon. They weren't
building a nuclear weapon. Did they have aspirations of possibly someday having a nuclear weapon? Yes,
but that information should have been brought to Congress and then Congress would have been the ones
to decide. If elected to Congress, I would vote immediately to end the war
in Iran as it's unconstitutional to begin with. Thank you, Tonya. OK. We have another question in the
queue. Shahana Ansari, if you would like to unmute and ask your question. And it will be directed first
to Floyd Taylor. Hi. I am hearing a lot about what you all think, and that's really useful. And thank
you for that.
I'm wondering what kind of actions you would take, how you would go about if you were elected, what
traditional routes of action and maybe some creative routes of action would you try and take to make
some changes? This comes from a perception on the voter side that we hear these things from candidates
and we get excited about them, but then once people are in office, these things
aren't able to pass for whatever reason. I'm curious what kind of actions you sort of, what's your plan
of action if you were to enter office? That question is directed first to Floyd. My plan of action if
I get elected to office is to bind my decisions to the constituent input through the Congress app.
or through input from the local district offices. That's it. I do not have a position of my own that
I plan on pushing forward. My vote will be bound 100 percent to the will of the district. Thank you,
Floyd. Tanya, would you like to address that question, please? Yes.
There are 435 members of Congress. So if elected to Congress, I would be one of 435. And there's a reason
why it's set up that way because our founders didn't want it to be too easy to have plans of action
without the consent of the people. We need to have debate and dialogue before we pass laws. And that's
why we have
many representatives that have to get together and speak to each other before there's a vote on the
floor. Plans of actions depend on the topic, depend on what the issue is that we're talking. Is it medical?
Is it national defense? Is it economics? There's a whole range of issues that need to be discussed and
debated before voted on. Thank you, Tanya.
Brad, would you like to address that question? Absolutely. This is a really good question. And it's
difficult to get things done through Congress. It absolutely is. And one of the issues is that the Founding
Fathers hadn't planned on having a two-party system. And the reason that it has worked out is it's the
only way that things
have been able to get done in an organized way. I'm one of 435, but when the Democrats win and when
I win, I'm going to be part of a larger group, a block that can work on priorities like universal health
care, fixing the tax code, making improvements in economics, working on the environment. All of these
things require cooperation for more than just one individual.
So the party system has real strength and value in that. It also has downsides, and we've seen that.
But that's why voting Democrat is important if you want to make things better under this election. And
even inside of that, there's the Progressive Caucus, which I'm planning on joining, which is a more
active part of the Democratic Party pushing for, again, universal health care, better tax code, environmental
improvements, and protecting social security. It's going to require cooperation and collaboration. You
asked about what inventive things we can do. And unfortunately, my time is up. Thank you, Brad. OK,
Laura Logan has another question.
And so Laura, would you unmute and please ask your question directing it first to Tanya Hudson.
Thank you. Yeah, I'm curious as to what your opinions are on ICE, the acts that ICE has been doing in
the country and the facts that they are undertrained and not well vetted.
and what do you think Congress can do to reduce the awfulness that they're doing? Thank you. Thank you,
Laura. We've had a version of that question asked, but perhaps Laura's looking for some additional details. Tanya?
Would you like to? Laura may not have been here when that question was asked just a little while ago.
And this is recording. So instead of repeating myself, I will want to say that as a member of Congress,
because we have 435 members, things need to be voted on. But also leadership is important in Washington, DC.
And because we have a broken two-party monopoly system, that needs to change. That's one of the reasons
why I'm running. I saw on Labor Day the leader of the Democrat Party, Joaquin Jeffries. If the Democrats
were to get the majority after November 3rd, he would most likely be the Speaker of the House.
And he was asked the question about Medicare for all because there was a couple of progressives in the
Democrat Party that want Medicare for all. He said no, absolutely not. He said that that has already
come up many times before and it's it fails. It's going nowhere. He elaborated on it more than what
I'm summarizing, but basically the leader of the Democrat Party said Medicare for all is dead in the
water. So that's something that needs to be
talked about and considered as we move forward with this campaign. Brad, would you like to add anything
and respond to that particular question about ICE? Yes, I would. So again, we're talking about in this
question, tactics related to ICE. And I've talked in my previous answer that we really need to think
strategically to make this problem go away.
Really, one of the things that we need to do is we need to shift away from an authoritarian approach
to enforcement at the tactical level. We need to be shifting resources not to getting more
people incarcerated and warehoused in concentration. We really need to increase our
adjudication abilities so that when somebody is brought into the system, they're adjudicated and they're
either deported or they're blessed to be in the United States. What we're doing right now, tactically,
is just dumb.
We've spent all of our money on enforcement. We're ramping up, and as the person said, they're
not well-trained, they're not well-vetted. We're ramping up on that side. We're getting a large collection,
a backlog of people that we're removing from the economy, that we're productive in the economy, and
we're having to pay to warehouse them. Instead of increasing
the throughput of the system, we've just got this big glut of people that are sitting in detention.
It is really dumber than a post. Thank you, Brad. Floyd, would you like to address that question, please?
Sure. What can we actually do about ICE and their fact that they're untrained and the fact that they're
using awful tactics? Cut off their money.
That's what we can actually do. It has nothing to do with how I feel about their tactics, but that's
how we can actually address the problems. Just take away their money. OK, thank you, Floyd. It looks
as if I don't have any questions in the queue. We still have some time here, so if anyone thinks of
a question, please
Okay, Rosemary. Rosemary Doherty has a question. And if you would please unmute Rosemary and ask your
question, it will be directed first to Brad Meyer. Given the fact that sort of dire situation that we're
in with the slide toward authoritarianism, and we do not have rank choice voting,
would you consider or what are your thoughts on joining forces just to defeat the current sitting
representative? Thank you. Okay. Brad, did you understand the question?
I was going to ask if I could request a clarification. Join forces with who? The three of you. Just
go as one to get more votes to have a greater chance of winning against someone who supports the current
situation, which I see as dire. Yes.
I agree that we are in dire straits. As I said before, I was working for the Navy and quit my job a
year shy of early retirement, specifically because I see this is not just an election about policy.
It's about the direction of our country. And as the Democratic nominee,
If Tanya and Floyd want to endorse me and move all their voters over to me, I would love for them to
do that. They have an opportunity, and I will go on mute. Floyd, how would you like to respond to that
question? Well, that's an interesting question. And I have an answer to it, and nobody's going to like it.
Aaron Houchett is going to win this race. There's no doubt about it. The math says Aaron is going to
win. Brad has zero chance of winning. There is not enough Republican vote. There's not enough Republicans
that will cross over to vote for a Democrat. There's no Democrats that are going to cross over and vote
for a Libertarian. Both Tanya and Brad have absolutely zero chance of winning.
It looks good and they can promise a blue wave or something, but it's just not going to happen. There
are a preponderance of voters that are independent, whether they call themselves Democrat or call themselves
Republican. There's only two ways this goes. Houchin wins and nobody cares, or I win and
the national news trucks to send on the ninth district. Okay, Floyd, thank you. Tanya, how would you
like to address that question? Well, as far as joining forces to agree that the person sitting in the
White House should be removed,
Yes, I think that if Brad and Floyd wanted to join me, because I think I'm the best option on the ballot,
and I do think that 2026 is an interesting year. District 9 is predominantly a red district, but I have
talked to many, many, many voters on the campaign trail.
Even the Republicans are disappointed in Erin Houch, and they don't want to vote for her. But many of
them don't want to swing too far left either. And I've been told that I have their vote. Of course,
they're telling me that to my face. But I am the better option if somebody doesn't want to go too far
to the left, but they're disappointed with who's in the office now, the Republican who's just a puppet
and parrots the White House, then vote
for Tonya Hudson, the Libertarian. I think if we get a handful of Libertarians from across the country
into Congress, it doesn't matter whether the Republicans or Democrats have more people. If neither one
of them has the majority because we have a handful of Libertarians, throw some independents in there,
then we can make a huge difference in Washington DC and roll back the pesky rules and regulations.
Thank you, Tonya. Sunny, may I add one other thing since I was under on my time? Okay. All right. So
I just wanted to mention that I believe there's actually laws against the three of us collaborating
together, right? So if Tanya, Tanya should be running because she thinks she's the best. Floyd should
be running because he thinks he's the best.
If they were trying to manipulate and say, you know, hey, I'm going to attack Erin this way, and I'm
going to try to erode her support, and we're collaborating together, I think that's actually not allowed,
right? The system is set up that we are competitive. And so anyway, I just wanted to mention that I
was a little bit glib in my response, and some of it is I don't want to break the law doing it.
Thank you, Brett. All right, we have Shahana has another question. So Shahana, if you would unmute and
ask your question, and it will be directed first to Floyd. Hi. I was wondering, actually, this is a
nice follow-up question to what was just asked. We have a lot of polarization in our communities. Families
have tension within them.
pulling people apart. I'm wondering what you feel competition wise, like what's a healthy level
of competition for a political discourse and
candidacy, and in what ways would you try, if at all, would you try to bring the community kind of more
aligned and together? I'm hearing a lot from what you all are saying. There's a lot of overlap, even
though there's different philosophical political backgrounds. How would you help the community kind
of see those alignments?
within us as well and come together as Hoosiers rather than members of particular political parties
or identities. Thank you, Shahana. Floyd, would you like to address that first? Sure. If you go sit
down and talk to your neighbor, you will find out that if you don't talk about politics, they believe
the same things you believe more or less. I mean, they all want a happy life, happy family, good job,
good pay, good health insurance. Everybody wants the same thing. Everybody wants the same goals. And
if you don't have political parties throwing a wrench in the business, everybody gets along. And that's
basically why I'm running as an independent is because everybody wants the same thing. There doesn't
need to be a political party throwing a monkey wrench in your life.
Thank you, Floyd. Tanya, would you like to address that question, please? Well, as far as bringing people
together, politically, that's difficult and always has been. We've had civil discourse in our politics
going back decades, even 100 years. In fact, it used to be worse. It used to be nasty. So we do have
competition. We do have debates. But in
the century, I'm gonna say the decade that we're in now, even though it does seem mean and mean-spirited
at times, there was a time in our history where it was a lot worse. I mean, people would physically
burn somebody's house down and the pitchforks would come out. So I think right now having some debate,
arguments, as long as we're civil,
should continue. There is some rhetoric that is uncalled for, but I think that's to a minimum compared
to our history. Thank you, Tonya. Brad, would you like to address that? I thought the question of competition
is an interesting thing. There are things that I'm fighting for, and I brought them up before, universal
health care and changes in our economic policy.
to help workers and Social Security. But fighting for doesn't mean that it's a competition. It is a
struggle to get policies enacted that help people. And there are people that see it differently, and
you can have a policy discussion and debate with them.
and try to reason with them. And then there are people that have their own self-interest or the interest
of their donors in mind that are against it because it doesn't profit them and their friends. So when
I talk about fighting, it's fighting against the people that are acting in self-interest instead of
interest of the people.
Floyd made the comment about a party throwing a monkey wrench in it. The fact is that Democrats and
Republicans, if you look at all the economic trends over time, they have been going down in a negative
way. What got me running for office is that Project 2025 is going to make those nose dive. So I've been
watching politicians manage the decline of this country for years.
what they're doing right now is going to crash it. Thank you, Brett. Okay, we have another question.
Sherry Frank, if you would please unmute and ask your question, it will be directed first to Tanya.
Hi, thank you. I just wanted to ask, what is your view and what action might you take regarding public
education?
and universal preschool. Thank you. Yes, Tanya, would you like to address that? That is a very good
question. And I hear it from both sides of the spectrum.
I think that the Department of Education at the federal level, not the state level, because I think
Indiana's State Department of Education does a fairly good job. It needs improvement, but I'm for states'
rights in the Constitution. I do not think that politicians in DC should be dictating the education
system in Montana.
as well as Florida, it can't be a one size fits all. And I've talked to teachers who, if they apply
for grant money at the federal level, there's so much red tape, there's so many rules that they have
to abide by to the point to where they can't even do their job if they accept the money. So I've had
a teacher say, I'm better off not even accepting grant money because it,
infringes on my ability to teach if I have to do all these ABC XYZ to get the money. So I think the
Department of Education at the federal level has been a dismal failure for decades, but I think the
money needs to go back to the states instead of at the federal level and let the State Department of
Education do what they need to do at the state level because they are closer to the people. They are
closer to the students. They are closer to the teachers at the state level.
the Federal Department of Education has been a disaster for decades. Thank you. Brad, would you like
to address that question, please? Sure. So the Department of Education has not responsibility. Tanya
is right in part in saying that the Constitution has given education as the responsibility of the state.
What the Department of Education has helped to do is to provide funding for the more expensive things
that the states are having trouble funding, such as funding for children with learning disabilities
and other disabilities. And the federal government was offering money to help with that.
which helps with people's property taxes, right? If the states had to do it on their own, property taxes
would have to be higher. And I'm 100% okay with the federal government saying, we'll provide a grant,
but you have to follow the basic rules. And I'm okay with a teacher saying, I don't wanna follow those
rules and the grant money going somewhere else.
The fact is that at the state level, we are seeing an intentional attempt to privatize our education
system. It's going to go bad. And one of the reasons that people want to gut the Department of Education
is the Department of Education provides insights into whether the systems are working or not. They are
scorekeepers that will help parents know whether these new systems that they're trying to put in place
by the state of Indiana is working or not working.
If you remove the scorekeeper, you can get away with anything. Thank you, Brad Floyd. Would you like
to address that question? Yeah, I wrote a public education reform act. If you take federal money, you
need to abide by certain standards and federal money cannot be used to fund private schools. And there's
a lot more to it than that.
but that's the gist of it, is that if you take federal money, you follow federal standards, you provide
a certain minimum level of service, which is higher than we have right now, and you can't fund private
schools with it. That's the whole thing. Thank you, Floyd. We have one more question in the queue, and
I think I'll make that the last question, and then we will move into your closing.
and we will be wrapping things up. So Shahana, you have another question, would you please unmute and
ask your question? And it will go first to Brad.
Yes, thank you all. I'll quickly ask a follow-up to the education question. How do you all feel about
funding for science? The cuts to scientific funding are a concern, and I'm curious how you would go
about addressing that in your role in Congress. Thank you, Shahana. Brad, would you like to respond
to that question, please?
Sure. So the federal government has had responsibility and huge influence for the last hundred years
in pushing forward basic science research through grants and other educational outreaches and their
research activities.
The abandonment of science is a serious threat to our future strength. And we've gotten to the point
that we hold, many of us hold in contempt knowledgeable people, people that have spent their
lives researching and learning and understanding, and we're cutting research funding. And I agree with
Floyd in saying that
there should be requirements if you're going to take a federal grant, but they're weaponizing that now
to minimize and to reduce the level of research. And if you look at what they're doing in the healthcare
system, they're cutting funding for cancer research. They're undermining immunization confidence. They're really,
trying to take us back and away from a science-based society, and it's not going to profit us in the
long run. Thank you, Floyd. Would you like to respond to that? Sure. I actually wrote a bill for that.
It protects science research funding and guarantees that if you're doing scientific research, if you
get a grant, they can't just come in and cut off your grant.
It has to continue to a certain point and there's a lot more details to the bill than that, but it's
basically supports scientific research and science research funding through the federal government.
Thank you, Tanya. Would you like to address that question, please? Yes, I definitely.
would be in favor of promoting science and technology, even on the medical side, research and development.
We need to be leaders in this world and not the followers and have other countries beat us on the front
of science and technology and medical research. So I would be in favor of promoting that.
As far as the Department of Education at the federal level, we don't need them for that part. Money
that is going to the Department of Education now should be returned to the states so that the state
level Department of Education can have those funds to use as they see fit in their state because every
state is different and I don't like the one size fits all approach from the politicians in DC. Thank you.
We're now ready to proceed into your one-minute final comments, and we will start with Floyd. Okay.
When November 3rd comes, you go to the polling place, you push your red button, you push your blue button,
you scroll all the way down to the bottom of the form,
Check the little box and you write in Floyd Taylor. That's my whole ask. Thank you. Thank you Floyd.
Tanya. Okay.
There was a lot of topics discussed here today and I have a lot more to say a lot more of my vision
and the solutions that I have as a candidate. So please go to my website. Hudson for Hoosiers.com and
learn about the issues that I care about, which are the issues that the voters care about. I have on
my website. It's called the roll it back cage and every week I do a weekly commentary about the current
events and.
My weekly commentary is written by me. Nobody else sees it until I post it. I don't use AI, so my commentary
that I write is word for word from me. The current incumbent. She's got to go. She has been failing
District 9 miserably. I think I'm the best option on the ballot and I need your vote. I have the experience the.
stamina and the tenacity to go to Washington, D.C., and do what needs to be done. Thank you, Tonya.
Brad, your final comments. As I said before, this election is about the direction of this country. And
the fact is, if you want a better future, you're going to have to vote for it.
The current incumbent, again, I'll have to agree with Tonya, has been in favor and rubber stamped everything
that Trump and Project 2025 is doing. It's having deleterious effects on the country. And you're going
to see that most of the things that have been advocated for are taking effect after the election.
If she was voting in your best interest, those things would have happened before the election so she
can brag about it. They've pushed it back till after the election so that you won't be able to vote
on what her record is really doing to you. And if she was so proud of everything that she was doing,
she'd be out spending time with people and having town halls and being at debates or discussions like
this. Thank you, League of Women Voters, for putting this on.
And thank you, all three of you, for coming to this forum and all of those in the audience. We appreciate
you so much.
If you know of people who were not able to come, we will be passing along access to the recording so
that you can tell them they can watch that. Please don't forget everyone to check your registration.
Monday is the deadline to register for this election. Early voting begins October 6th and ends at noon
on November 2nd.
Election day is November 3rd. Check your status on indianavotors.in.gov to be sure your registration
is active. Check vote411.org for the League of Women Voters national database of candidates and responses
that they have given to questions that have been posed to them. You can compare and
even make note of those who did not take the time to respond. So I also want to thank not only the candidates
and all of you, but Community Access Television, our team members, and all of our sponsors, the League
of Bloomington, Monroe County, Brown County, Johnson County, Alpha Sorority, Omega Chapter, Indiana
University Political and Civic Engagement,
Monroe County Now, NAACP of Monroe County, South Central Indiana Citizens Climate Lobby, and Unitarian
Universalist Congregation of Columbus, Indiana. Thank you all.