NH Debate
NH Debate
NH Debate
NH Debate
NH Debate
NH Debate
NH Debate
NH Debate
NH Debate
MS. BROWN: Senator Hatch, should an individual have the right to sue his or her HMO if unreasonably denied
medical care? Under current law, HMOs are immune to such lawsuits.
As you know, the U.S. House has passed the Patient Bill of Rights, which includes a provision for such lawsuits.
The Senate has a competing bill, and it does not contain that provision.
So if the prospect of civil liability is the best means for preventing these kinds of unreasonable coverage decisions,
would you support it?
Senator HATCH: Well, the best means is, of course, to allow an appeal so that the decisions aren‟t made by
accountants and lawyers, but by doctors.
The Senate bill allows that to be done. However, I do agree that the House bill has gone a little bit farther. If those
appeals don‟t work, it seems to me there ought to be some form of litigation to be able to keep things straight.
Now, I have to say that what we‟re trying to avoid, and the one thing we‟re looking for more than anything else, is
to quit making lawyers rich at the expense of everybody else, and running up the cost of the system.
So there has to be ultimately, I think, and there will be ultimately in the final bill, there will be some sort of ability to
bring litigation if justice isn‟t really going to occur.
You know, the Senate bill is stronger.
The House bill does provide for that. And I think there will be a compromise where ultimately there will be a
provision for litigation, but something that hopefully will not just make the attorneys rich and run the cost of
hospitalization and other medical services up.
MS. BROWN: Well, some would dispute that.
They would say the cost really is not the issue here. According to an independent study that was sponsored by the
Kaiser Family Foundation, it showed that the cost of litigation against HMOs is really only between 3 and 13 cents
per enrollee. So some would ask why then allow the HMOs this special legal status?
Senator HATCH: Is that 3 or 13 cents per minute, per hour, per day, per what? The fact of the matter is, you‟re
looking at somebody who was a medical liability defense lawyer at one time.
And I‟ve estimated that it costs us an extra $300 billion a year in health care costs, if not more, because of
unjustified litigation.
So we want to make sure that patients have rights, that they are protected.
And if litigation is the only way they can be, we want to provide that they are. But if we can avoid litigation, it saves
every taxpayer in America, it saves Mom and Dad and all the kids and everybody else who‟s going to have to pay
taxes, it saves them that money and really basically preserves our economy.
So it‟s a matter of bringing things together, something I‟ve done my whole Senate career.
As a matter of fact, I‟m not just talking about it. I‟ve done it. More needs to be done. That‟s why I‟m running for
president.
MR. HUME: Mr. Forbes, the quote that Governor Bush read during the last round appeared to have you, if it is a
correct quote, proposing or suggesting that you would consider doing the very thing you have got ads out criticizing
him for.
How do you answer that?
MR. FORBES: Well, that quote I think was written 20-some-odd years ago when the system was in crisis, and as a
result of that crisis, I decided to look, why is the system always getting in trouble where they propose raising the
age, cutting benefits, putting taxes on people?
And this is a prime example, Brit, of the typical Washington attitude that the American people are here to serve
Washington, and its lobbyists, and special interests, and its political culture, rather than the other way around.
And that‟s why I‟ve developed a plan to preserve Social Security for those who are on it and those who are about to
go on it, but to allow working Americans to have a choice –
to stay with the old system if they wish, or to go to a new system where the bulk of their Social Security taxes will
eventually go to their own personal retirement account.
They‟ll have far more in their retirement than they can possibly get with this current system. The only losers will be
the Washington politicians and special interests.
MR. HUME: That is sure to be attacked by Democrats as – in their inimitable phrase - a risky scheme.
How would you answer that – that money invested in the markets would be potentially subject to great gains, but
potentially also subject to severe losses?
MR. FORBES: Well, under my plan, Brit, first of all, risky –
that‟s Washington talk for “you‟re going to take away our power.” I don‟t trust Al Gore, Bill Clinton or anyone else
to safeguard Social Security for the American people.
Clearly they‟ve failed at it. All the politicians have.
So what I‟ve proposed is a new system – and you‟ll have an investment of menu choices: safe mutual funds, bank
CDs, bonds.
And there also is – thanks to my plan – a minimum guarantee. If the world comes to an end, the market crashed, you
will have a minimum guarantee when you retire.
So we‟ve covered the bases on it.
It works, it‟s bold, and it plays by the rules of the American people, not Washington.
MS. BROWN: Governor Bush, according to the Houston Chronicle, Houston is the smoggiest city in America.
Do you support the EPA‟s proposed Tier 2 standards to desulfurize gasoline? Cleaner gasoline would help cut down
on the ozone pollution, yet many refiners, some of whom are based in Texas, oppose the Tier 2 standards. Please tell
us your position.
GOV. BUSH: I will.
Let me say one thing, before I start, about Senator McCain. He‟s a good man. He‟s a good man.
Senator MCCAIN: (Chuckles.) Thanks.
GOV. BUSH: I don‟t know what compelled me to say that about you, Senator – (Laughter.) He‟s a good friend.
Yes, I do support cleaner gasoline standards across the country. I – here‟s what I believe.
I believe we can have economic growth and conservation at the same time, and I know there are some
environmental groups out of Washington running ads about me here in New Hampshire. They‟re polluting my
record. I‟ve got a good record as governor. We‟ve reduced toxic emissions overwhelmingly in my state. Industrial
emissions are down by 11 percent. I signed two really good pieces of legislation that are going to remove 250,000
tons of stuff being spewed in the air, which is the equivalent of removing 5.5 million automobiles off our roads.
I‟ve got a good record because I know how to set high standards; I know how to bring people together to achieve
those standards.
MS. BROWN: But specifically, what about those Tier 2 standards?
GOV. BUSH: If I accept – I think we ought to look at a national standard for lower sulfide for gasoline, absolutely.
MR. HUME: Senator Hatch, you‟ve heard Mr. Forbes‟ answer to the question about the Microsoft suit.
He says basically he‟d drop it. What would you do?
Senator HATCH: Well, look, I was the first to hold hearings on Microsoft because we had literally hundreds, if not
thousands, of complaints from all over the software and computer industry that Microsoft was leveraging its 90
percent control of the underlying operating system that everybody had to tie into in order to come onto the Internet
and in order to use – and that they were doing that by crushing others, picking on others, buying up others, using
their economic power.
Now, that‟s what the antitrust laws are for.
The antitrust laws are very conservative laws.
They‟re laws that try to make sure we even up and make people equal.
Keep in mind the judge that tried that case, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, is one of our better District Court
judges.
He wrote an extensive opinion concerning the finding of facts, and those facts were devastating to Microsoft.
Anybody who reads that opinion and then says that Microsoft shouldn‟t have to face some sort of a sanction or some
sort of remedy, really hasn‟t looked at the facts. To make a long story short, that suit is justified.
MR. HUME: All right.
But, Senator, the antitrust laws are supposed to protect consumers, they‟re not necessarily supposed to protect just
competitors. That‟s special interest activity –
Senator HATCH: You‟ve got that exactly right.
The whole purpose of the antitrust laws is to protect consumers. But you don‟t protect consumers if you crunch
others who might be competitors from being competitive and if you use predatory conduct to do that.
Now, the judge has given his statement of facts.
The next step is to find out if Microsoft has a monopoly. The step after that is what remedy do you have if Microsoft
is found to be in a monopoly? I suspect that it‟s very difficult for Microsoft to escape being called a monopoly or
have a monopoly control with regard to the underlying operating system. When it comes to the final decision, that
could range from anything from a slap on the hands to actual breakup.
MS. BROWN: Senator McCain, the status of the U.S. Army‟s readiness is under scrutiny right now.
They have difficulty recruiting. There is an internal dispute between traditionalists, who say the Army‟s strength is
in its big guns and tanks, and those who say the Army should modernize to be able to deploy faster and lighter tanks.
What‟s your take? Does the Army have a place in a modern military or is the U.S. Army obsolete?
Senator MCCAIN: Of course the Army has a place.
And the Army, however, has not been able to restructure to meet the post-Cold War challenges.
All during the Cold War, the United States Army was geared to fight a tank battle on the plains of Central Europe.
Now they have to be able to move from one place to another around the world quickly, and, once there, to
beneficially affect the battlefield equation. They‟re not capable of doing that. A recent incident was an Army
division was just declared unready for combat. That division was the 10th Mountain Division, Bob Dole‟s old
division.
Yes, we need to restructure the military.
We need to knock heads together in the military. I know how to do that because I‟ve been there. And I also believe
that we‟ve got to rid the defense appropriations bills of pork barrel spending, waste, and incredible, almost criminal
behavior like spending $325 million on an aircraft carrier that the Navy doesn‟t want or need. This has got to be
fixed, and fixed soon, and particularly the men and women in the military.
MS. BROWN: Well, if you say the Army‟s not obsolete, then what kind of commitment would you make as
president to help the Army with readiness? I‟m talking dollars.
Senator MCCAIN: The question is not spending more dollars; the question is spending money on programs and
projects we need, eliminating those that we didn‟t.
Look, we‟ve been buying C-130s for 10 years. We‟re going to have a C-130 in every school yard in America.
There‟s no need for much of the equipment we are purchasing, but the effect of the special interests in Washington
and their big contributions can prevent us not only from buying the equipment we need, but taking care of the men
and women in the military.
Recently in San Diego, at Camp Pendleton, enlisted Marines were standing in line for cartons of food.
That‟s a disgrace.
I intend to fix it. In fact, it even makes me a little angry.
MR. HUME: Mr. Bauer?
MR. BAUER: Yes?
MR. HUME: If you could only do one thing as president, what would it be?
MR. BAUER: My goodness, what a great question.
I‟m tempted in a lot of different areas to answer that. Obviously, my strong position about the sanctity of life is
something that I don‟t think we‟re going to get anything else right in America if we don‟t get this right.
We‟ve only made a mistake like this once before, Brit, and that was way back in the 1850s in the Dred Scott case
when the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, said that black men and women had no rights that the rest of
us were bound to respect.
And we look back on that and we‟re astonished that the Court would say such a thing. The poison of that decision
still keeps Americans apart today.
But I believe that 26 years ago the Court did it again.
They took a whole group of Americans – our unborn children – and they said, “you have no rights,” that “you have
no place in the American family.” So if I could say one thing it would be to set a place at the table for those children
to include them in the protections of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
MR. HUME: And your second priority?
MR. BAUER: My second priority would be to restore a sense of honor again to the White House.
This has been a terrible seven years, Brit. I had a little girl in Louisiana the other day ask her parents what I was
trying to do, and they said that I wanted to be president, and she said, well, that means he‟ll probably have to lie.
And I thought about going from George Washington, and “I cannot tell a lie” – what we used to associate with the
Presidency of the United States – to what we have now. It has been a bad seven years in that regard, and I think it‟s
increased public cynicism about our institutions, about our government, and about the kind of place America can be.
MS. BROWN: Mr. Keyes, America intervened in Kosovo when it became apparent that innocent civilians were
being slaughtered.
Now the same is happening in Chechnya. What should the United States do about Russia‟s military crack-down on
Chechnya?
MR. KEYES: Well, first of all, I think the first part of your statement is not true.
Over the course of the last several months, we‟ve learned a lot of information that suggests that the propaganda that
was unhappily spread throughout the media about atrocities in Kosovo was greatly exaggerated. The Pentagon has
admitted; news sources have admitted it; teams have been in now and have discovered that a lot of these things did
not have foundation.
I think that that was a propaganda war.
I think we were manipulated into supporting a violation of a fundamental principle of nonaggression, and that our
aggression in that case was actually more dangerous than what was happening in Kosovo itself.
And at the end of the day, I think we have to be very careful when we start invoking some abstract notions of
globalism and global sovereignty in order to violate fundamental principles of national sovereignty, which in fact are
very important to safe-guarding the regional peace around the world.
I think it‟s better than invading other countries to control our own behavior, to make sure that we don‟t provide the
resources to these oppressive regimes, as we are doing in places like China as well as Russia when they are
oppressing their people.
(Bell sounds.)
MS. BROWN: So do we ignore what‟s happening in Chechnya? Or do you advocate, if certainly not engaging
troops, something like withholding loans from the International Monetary Fund?
MR. KEYES: Well, I think that‟s what I just said.
I think it‟s important that we distinguish between a policy of globalist interventionism that has us acting as the
policeman of the world and that I think will foment violence and fear and resentment everywhere, and a policy that
basically says look, we‟re not going to try to control your country, but we will control our own actions; we will
control our own associations; we will control our own trade.
We will see to it that if you‟re a brutal regime like the communist dictators in China, we will not have Most Favored
Nation status, business as usual with you.
If you are a regime of thugs and kleptocrats, such as unfortunately now plague the Russian people, will not provide
hard-earned American capital to support you in that kleptocracy.
I think those are things we can do that can have a beneficial influence without undermining the peace of the world
with globalist interventionist policies that could become a pretext for aggression by others.
MR. HUME: Governor, there a great many people who have said that they couldn‟t have done any better on that pop
quiz on world leaders than you did.
But it does seem, fairly or not, to have raised the issue of your knowledgeability of the world and your interest in
that. Could you tell us, sir, what do you read every day for information?
GOV. BUSH: What do I read?
MR. HUME: What do you read for information?
GOV. BUSH: Well, I read the newspaper.
MR. HUME: Which?
GOV. BUSH: I read the Dallas Morning News, I read the New York Times, I read the Wall Street Journal and I read
the Austin American Statesman.
I‟m not so sure I get a lot knowledge out of there, but I read them every day.
MR. HUME: And what else?
GOV. BUSH: Well, I read books all the time.
I‟m reading a book on Dean Acheson right now. I like to read mysteries, I like to read novels.
But look, here‟s the test of a leader.
A test of a leader is when given responsibility, can you perform? And I‟ve got a record of leading. It‟s the second
biggest state in the Union. If it were a nation, it would be the 11th largest economy in the world. And I‟ve had
confirmation about my leadership style. The people of Texas overwhelmingly voted for me for the first time – for a
person to be elected for the first time to back-to-back four-year terms. I‟ve been able to reach across racial lines in
my state. I got nearly 50 percent of the Hispanic vote. I got a significant part of the African American vote. People
appreciate the fact I know how to lead.
MS. BROWN: Mr. Forbes, set aside your flat tax for the moment, if you would.
What would you advocate as president to keep us away from inflation and out of economic recession?
MR. FORBES: Well, that‟s very easy, and that is to have a Federal Reserve that keeps the dollar sound.
And unfortunately today, Karen, we have a Federal Reserve that is starting to tighten up, raise interest rates because
of a bogus economic theory that says that prosperity causes inflation. So, unlike George Bush, I‟m not sure I‟m
going to reappoint Alan Greenspan, if he‟s addicted to that theory. It‟s a destructive one. It has already done
immense harm to agriculture in America. And if he continues in that course of action, it‟s going to do real harm to
the economy.
What‟s happened with the Fed, Karen, is typical of this “Washington first” attitude, of Washington setting the rules
on how we should act.
You see it on the tax issue, which you wanted me to put aside, and I‟ve answered your question. But on the tax
issue, Washington tries to tell us what the rules are in terms of what tax cuts should be, which is why George Bush‟s
tax cut plays to their rules. It‟s small, it keeps the IRS in place, and that‟s not right.
MS. BROWN: So you would not reappoint Alan Greenspan?
MR. FORBES: Well, I‟d have a heart-to-heart with him, Karen, to see if he truly buys into that crazy theory that
prosperity causes inflation, because if we keep the dollar steady, there‟s no reason why, if we make these other
changes, getting rid of this horrible tax code and replacing it with a flat tax, getting in a positive new Social Security
system for working Americans, where they own the money, not the politicians, putting parents in charge of
education and putting patients in charge of health care, why, instead of having a 2 or 3 percent growth rate, we can
have 4, 4.5 percent.
We can do better. And it‟s going to take an outsider to do it.
MR. HUME: Senator McCain, where do you come out on this question of this stock market, as high as it is, and on
the issues that have just been asked of Mr. Forbes relating to Mr. Greenspan, who seems, at times, alarmed by the
level of the stock market? Do you think it‟s a bubble? Do you think we should afraid of this? What?
Senator MCCAIN: I share Mr. Greenspan‟s concern.
And, by the way, I would not only reappoint Mr. Greenspan; if Mr. Greenspan should happen to die, God forbid, I
would do like they did in the movie “Weekend at Bernie‟s.” I‟d prop him up and put a pair of dark glasses on him
and keep him as long as we could. (Laughter.)
The fact is that Mr. Greenspan deserves great credit – great credit – for this economic recovery.
He‟s been a steady hand. He‟s unintelligible, but he‟s been a very steady hand on the tiller, and I am a great admirer
and an advocate of his policies and programs.
Let me just also go back just one second to this Chechnya situation, if I could.
Look, there are severe implications to this. It‟s not just the Russians massacring some innocent people, which is
terrible in itself, and fortunately, it‟s not in our living rooms. But it has implications in the region as far as oil and
gas reserves are concerned, the Russian military reasserting itself, and the overthrow of a government in Georgia
which was a remarkable little democracy under Mr. Shevardnadze – a true hero. (Bell sounds.) So it‟s very – this is
a very serious situation.
We should cut off IMF funding, we should cut off IMF loans, we should make it very clear to the Russians that this
is serious business, it has significant implications, and it can affect a wide –
(bell sounds) – gamut of relations between our two nations.
MR. HUME: All right.
Quickly, then, Senator, just let me get the rest of your answer on the stock market. Is it a bubble?
Senator MCCAIN: Oh.
I‟m afraid that it‟s becoming that, but I don‟t pretend to be an expert on that.
I am very concerned about this rapid rise.
I think all of us who observe it are, but I do have enormous faith and confidence in Mr. Greenspan, and I would heed
any warnings that come out of his mouth, and I will pay close attention.
Finally – could I just go back to Social Security – take 62 percent of the surplus, put it in a lock box, don‟t let the
government touch it, even under the guise of an emergency.
We just spent four- and-a-half billion dollars in the guise of emergency to conduct the year 2000 census – we didn‟t
know the census was coming – and allow people to invest their savings and their tax dollars into savings of their
choice. That will save Social Security, you don‟t have to raise the retirement age.
MS. BROWN: Mr. Bauer, in New Hampshire, a young woman named Amy Boyer (sp) was murdered in October.
What was startling about her death was that her killer had kept a public diary on a website dedicated to her for two
years, including details of how he planned to carry out this murder. After she was gunned down, the website host
pulled the plug, but only after authorities brought their attention to it.
My question is this: has the time come to police the Internet for content, and whose responsibility is it?
MR. BAUER: Well, Karen, this is obviously a big question that the country is going to have to face as technology
continues to grow and it becomes more and more difficult to deal with all the potential things that people can be
exposed to.
I disagree with those that suggest that somehow the Internet is sacrosanct, that it‟s a god that can‟t be touched.
You probably know that there are not only the sort of horrible incidents that you just mentioned, but the biggest
growth of Internet sites are pornography sites, many of them child pornography sites. I don‟t think there is a parent
in the country that‟s comfortable with allowing their child to be alone for long periods of time at that computer
screen, given what they can access.
So I think in a good and decent society, we‟ll find a reasonable way to balance our need for information and our
constitutional right, which we need also to have a society that recognizes certain values.
MS. BROWN: Is it the role of the federal government to close off the Internet to these illegal activities like the child
pornography you mentioned?
MR. BAUER: Well, let‟s hope that we begin to get some self- regulation that‟s better than what we saw in this
example.
But I think at some point, given that the Internet crosses the lines of government and the lines of the state, that the
federal government will have to take a hard look at what things it can do.
If I could return to another issue that we‟ve touched on a couple of times, but I don‟t think we‟re grabbing, and that
is our foreign policy.
I know it‟s not directly relatedNut it does get back to values, Karen. The question on Taiwan, the question about
Russia, et cetera – the question here is are we going to have a Reagan foreign policy, or are we going to have a
foreign policy driven by money and trade? I‟m afraid that in the case of Governor Bush and others, they are buying
into the idea that money and trade trump values. (Bell sounds.) I would withdraw Most Favored Nation status from
China. I would not allow them into the World Trade Organization. Whether it‟s the Internet or foreign policy, our
basic values have got to be at the center of what we do.
MR. HUME: Mr. Ambassador, let me try you on the issue of Internet and whether it should be regulated and by
whom.
MR. KEYES: I think it‟s important to understand first of all that anything we do with respect to the Internet is going
to have some limits because it is not only a national entity, it is an international entity.
Its tentacles run into countries all over the globe. And in fact, you will defeat part of the purpose of the networking if
you start putting up various and assorted barriers that shut the system down. And that‟s what I think a lot of the
people who are involved in it are concerned about.
I do think that we have a responsibility however to exercise those police powers that we can when we‟re dealing
with public matters.
And I would define as “public” anything to which children may have access.
If children can have access to it, then it seems to me society has the right to enforce certain levels of accountability
and responsibility in terms of what‟s going on there.
You can‟t make the argument this just about consenting adults when our children are in the room, and our children
are in the room when you have easily accessible material on the Internet. In that respect, we should take every
measure that we can, technologically feasibly, to try to protect them,including, of course, the encouragement of the
adoption of those technological means that parents can use to help to police this area.
MR. HUME: You seem to be saying it‟s difficult to do and that doing it is –
MR. KEYES: Oh, I don‟t want to fool people.
Of course it is.
MR. HUME: – and that doing it defeats some of the purpose of it, but you want to do it anyway.
MR. KEYES: No, I seem to be saying that you approach the issue understanding its difficulty and that you do what
you can.
I think that Congress has already been taking some responsible steps to hold accountable those providers who are
under our jurisdiction. That we can do. People like AOL and others are not operating out in space somewhere, they
operate from the United States. We can get their cooperation in helping to keep this clean. And within the limits of
our capabilities, we should.
But we have to keep in mind that it will not be a substitute for responsible action by parents and others because this
is a global phenomenon and all of us will have to work hard together in order to make sure that responsibility is
enforced, and that especially our children are protected from its harmful effects.
MS. BROWN: Well, Senator Hatch, I‟m going to stay with the Internet theme for a bit longer.
Futurists predict that e-commerce will be a trillion-dollar business in the next century. Currently the Internet is not
taxed. Should it be?
Senator HATCH: We have currently a moratorium on taxation on the Internet, and I happen to agree with that.
I really don‟t want the Internet to be taxed.
And to be honest with you, I don‟t want it to be regulated beyond reasonable norms.
For instance, we passed the Hatch cyber-squatting bill at the end of this session.
That bill basically is kind of a regulation that is necessary because – with regard to intellectual property and
trademarks.
We‟ve made it an actionable for somebody to steal your name and to put a pornographic site on it under your name,
which is happening today.
But other than intellectual property matters and use of the V- chip to protect our children, I‟d like to keep the
Internet as free from regulation as we possibly can.
It‟s probably one of the greatest sources of information and communication that we have in – we‟ve ever had in this
world, and I want to keep it that way. On the other other hand, there are some things that are bad, and government
can take pornographic sites off. Government can – under current law, there are some things that really need to be
done.
MS. BROWN: If you don‟t tax businesses doing e-commerce, doesn‟t that put small companies doing business the
old-fashioned way at a disadvantage because they are taxed?
Senator HATCH: Well, that‟s what my governor says, and he feels very strongly that we‟re going to lose Main
Street, USA, if we don‟t allow the same type of tax on e-commece transactions that we do on state transactions.
I‟m not sure he‟s right about that. E-commerce right now is significant. But I really question whether my wife is
going to go and buy everything off the Internet instead of going to the stores, or whether I‟m going to otherwise,
because Elaine told me this week, she said – I said, “Why don‟t you just order off the Internet?” She said, “I want to
go to the stores. I like to walk around among the products. I like to see them. I like to touch them.” And I don‟t think
that‟s going to necessarily go down the drain. But we‟ll have to look at it. We‟ll have to stay with the flow. But I‟d
like to not have regulation that that should be the rule. If it has to be, then we‟ll face that when it comes.
MR. HUME: Mr. Forbes, Governor Bush made a tax proposal this week that in dollar terms is larger than the one
that was proposed by Republicans in Congress, who, when they made theirs, went out during the August recess to
try to drum up support for it, and found remarkably little.
And yet you have criticized his proposal, in effect, as being too timid.
Are you living in, sort of, the real political world on taxes?
MR. FORBES: Oh, Brit, I think so, and I think this shows the difference between a Washington-based,
politics-based approach to taxes and what the American people truly want.
When the American people can do something positive on taxes, like reduce them through a referendum, they usually
do it.
In Washington, they have these crazy rules, Brit, where they score things in ways that make it hard to cut taxes, that
makes it easy for spending to go up. And that‟s why this tax cut proposed by George Bush is what it is. It is small, it
is inadequate, it leaves the IRS in place. It leaves 67,000 lobbyists still lobbying this corruptingly complex code. So,
yes, we should get rid of it, the American people want to get rid of it. Don‟t phase in measly tax cuts over five to
eight years – help people now. Take the death tax. World War II veterans, the greatest generation – they should have
that relief right now to be able to pass on the fruits of their labor to future generations instead of waiting to 2009.
MR. HUME: Well, what evidence would you cite from the public that there is appetite for this kind of – this tax
change, even for the end of the IRS – what evidence?
MR. FORBES: Talking to real people, talking to people like the Bailey family here in Exeter, New Hampshire.
They own a fish market – mom, dad, three kids. They told me the savings of my flat tax would enable them to buy
family health insurance. They can‟t afford to do it now.
So why play by the Washington rules, which means for measly tax cuts.
It‟s going to take, Brit, a firm outsider to get rid of this monstrous tax code, to do what is truly right on Social
Security, health care, education.
It‟s not going to be done playing by their rules.
The stack is decked (sic) and George Bush‟s proposal shows it. It‟s convoluted plan; it could have been done better,
and I hope he will make it better.
MS. BROWN: Senator McCain, several major HMOs are failing financially.
The system isn‟t working. There is rampant patient dissatisfaction. What do you propose to fix it?
Senator MCCAIN: We need a Patients Bill of Rights, and the reason why we haven‟t gotten it through the Congress
is because on the Democrat side, the trial lawyers have them in their control and they‟ll want to sue anybody for
anything under any circumstance.
On the Republican side, we‟re in the grip of the huge money from the insurance companies and the HMOs – the
typical gridlock which has caused Americans to have such a low opinion of what goes on in Washington.
The Internet should not be taxed.
The Internet should not be taxed. The Internet is the greatest thing that‟s happened to the world, somewhere between
– a combination between the invention of the printing press and the industrial revolution. It has unlimited potential
to spread knowledge, information and freedom throughout the world, and economic development. And the sales
taxes, as a result of the increase of the Internet commerce, even though there‟s a moratorium, have increased. And I
believe that that‟s ample testimony that the Internet will increase sales taxes, and the governors are incredibly
short-sighted when they want to tax this baby in its cradle. (Bell sounds.)
MS. BROWN: Let me return to the issue of health care and HMOs. Given how expensive health care is, HMOs are
now waking up to the fact that they can‟t deliver the promises they made to consumers and still be profitable.
If, ultimately, HMOs disappear, what then fills the void?
Senator McCAIN: Obviously the HMOs need to be made whole.
We need to spend more money to make sure that they do. We have added more money for Medicare and Medicaid
payments in the last emergency supplemental – (laughs) – that we passed. All of those thing have to be done, but I
also believe that we have to take care of patients first. And if patients are not well-treated in HMOs, then obviously
then the HMOs are not going to be sought out by them.
Again, on the Internet, we need to install – we are installing in every school and library in America filtering software
that would filter out according to community standards the objectionable material.
That‟s the way we resolve this issue of such a flood of pornography. And we are wiring those schools and libraries
at taxpayers‟ expense.
MR. HUME: Mr. Bauer, if the sale of a book or a pair of shoes is taxed when it‟s done in a store, why should it not
be taxed if it‟s done over the Internet? Isn‟t that how you level the playing field for all?
MR. BAUER: Well, I don‟t think so, Brit, in this sense.
The reason that there‟s taxes in retail establishments is that government is delivering certain services to those
establishments, whether it‟s fire protection for the store, police protection or whatever it might be. The Internet is
not getting that sort of service. So I think there is a rational case that can be made for not taxing sales on the Internet
while continuing to have local and state taxes on local commerce.
And if we want to get a consistency here, let‟s roll back those taxes that are falling on retail establishments and level
the playing field that way instead of dragging down the sales on the Internet by making them heavily taxed too.
MR. HUME: Well, speaking of taxes, what is your reaction to Governor Bush‟s tax plan so sharply criticized by Mr.
Forbes?
MR. BAUER: Well, you know, this may be one of the places where Steve and I agree in the sense that I think the
governor‟s plan is too timid.
It‟s the equivalent – to use the worn-out phrase – of moving chairs around on the deck of the Titanic.
We need to downsize the IRS.
We need to get that bureaucracy off of the back of the American people. We‟ve got to make it so that it‟s not so
complicated. But after that, Steve and I part company.
If you‟re going to have dramatic tax reform, you‟ve got to decide whether the wealth of America is in things and
machinery or whether it‟s in our human capital, in our people.
I‟ve got the lowest flat tax; it‟s 16 percent. You wouldn‟t pay anything on the first $20,000, you keep your mortgage
deduction, you keep your charitable contribution. Steve has a plan that gives big corporations a new write-off that
will allow many of them to have a zero tax rate, while farmers and school teachers and truck drivers are paying 25
percent between the flat tax and the Social Security tax. That‟s not fair.
MS. BROWN: Mr. Keyes, I‟m going to stick with this health care theme.
I think it‟s important. The cost of prescription drugs is escalating. Many New Hampshire residents will board a bus
and drive to Canada where it is cheaper to buy their drugs. What specifically do you propose to make those drugs
more affordable for senior citizens who are on Medicare?
MR. KEYES: I suppose they‟ll be carrying with them the prescriptions written by the doctors who came down from
Canada in order to practice medicine in America – (laughter) – because they couldn‟t do it properly up there!
I will have to take a privilege here, though, which was offered to us at the beginning of the show because I‟ve been
listening to this tax discussion and I have got to say a word because it seems to me a lot of posturing is going on here
overall on this issue, and we have all these folks – I mean, Mr. Bush‟s plan may be this, it may be that.
Basically it has folks running for the calculators: “Figure out much your family of four is going to get.” You know?
And so what are we supposed to do again, get down on our knees and thank “Master Bush” now because he‟s going
to let us keep a little bit more of our own money? And we‟ll thank “Master So-and-so” when they do it.
I think it‟s time we realized that that kind of thinking is for slaves.
My ancestors were slaves. I abhor to think like one today.
The tax system for a free people is not a tax that gives the government a preemptive claim to a single penny of your
income, and the right reform of this system is to get rid of the 16th Amendment, abolish the income tax, and return
to the original Constitution of our country – (bell sounds) – which funded the federal government with tariffs, duties,
and excise taxes.
That‟s how we‟ll get out from under.
MS. BROWN: O.K., now would you answer my question about the prescription drugs?
MR. KEYES: Yes, I will, because I was also anxious to address this whole question.
You addressed a question a minute ago about the HMOs and you‟re asking us – and we‟re politicians – as if we‟re
supposed to go to Washington, sit down like the commissars, and plan from on high what happens to America‟s
health system. I don‟t want to do it that way, and I promise you I won‟t.
I think what we need to do is do everything possible to put the consumer back in the driver‟s seat, to allow folks to
be able to be the masters of how they spend their medical dollars, so that they can then enforce the same kind of
quality control that they enforce in all the others areas of our economy.
And if they‟re not happy with the HMOs and they way they‟re doing business, then take your business to a group of
doctors who have organized themselves differently so that they will provide you with the service you want.
And we should have a system, whether it‟s insurance or – (bell sounds) – or government care that gives people the
power to make those choices, and that‟s what I‟d do.
MR. HUME: All right, Senator Hatch.
Why don‟t you try it on the tax issue?
Senator HATCH: Well, let me just say this.
I‟m against taxes. I was one of the handful who convinced Ronald Reagan that we should cut marginal tax rates
from 70 percent down to 28 percent by 1986. I agree with Governor Bush on the one hand that he‟s trying to cut
taxes $1.14 trillion over the next 10 years. That‟s larger than our congressional tax cut of $792 billion. Good going.
On the other hand, he wants to do it within this same lousy system that we have.
Can‟t blame him for that, because it‟s hard to change it. But the fact of the matter is we need to throw out this IRS
code and we need to start all over. Whether it should be a flat tax or whatever, we‟ve got to get a simplified code
and we‟ve got to go from there.
Now let me tell you, I am for anybody who will cut taxes.
You know, when – here‟s what we did. We put 25 percent away for cutting taxes, and 75 percent away for saving
Social Security, Medicare, and paying down the national debt. I thought that was the right thing to do, and I thought
that it would have worked.
MR. HUME: React, if you can, to what Ambassador Keyes has just said on this issue.
Senator HATCH: On this issue or on the HMO issue?
MR. HUME: Well, try – no, on this issue.
Senator HATCH: On this issue?
MR. HUME: He says end to this – and does Mr. Forbes – end to the IRS.
Senator HATCH: Well, I‟ll tell you, I agree with that.
I think we ought to throw out the whole doggone code. It‟s a terrible code. It‟s convoluted. I‟m on the Finance
Committee, I deal with it every year. As a matter of fact, at the end of the year we dealt with all kinds of health care
issues that we had to keep straightening out because the balanced budget and the tax problems weren‟t solved and
created more problems there – had 900 skilled nursing facilities to handle complex medical patients not taking care
of patients.
So, yes, I think we ought to throw out that code, start over again.
If I had my way, it would be a sales tax where people could determine exactly what they pay through the
consumption that they make. Now that‟s – that‟s a pretty big step, but it‟s something we ought to work on, and I‟d
sure try to get that done.
MS. BROWN: All right, Governor Bush, we‟re going to give you a chance to swat at this tax question as well.
GOV. BUSH: Well, for some it‟s not enough, and for some my tax cut is too big, which leads me to believe I may
be doing something just right.
I proposed yesterday a tax cut that will simplify our code, that will reduce the top rate from 39.6 to 33 percent, it
will encourage entrepreneurship, a code that makes the system more fair and more simple.
I believe one of the worst things we‟ve got under the tax code is this: it‟s really hard for somebody, a single woman
with children, for example, who‟s working hard to pay for her kids to advance into the middle class.
Her marginal rate is as high as people making over $200,000 a year. And because I‟ve lowered the bottom rate from
15 percent to 10 percent and increased the child credit to $1,000 per child, we‟ve really reduced the toll bridge for
this lady who works so hard to get into the middle class.
I proposed a good, bold, practical plan.
MS. BROWN: Let me follow up.
As you‟ve indicated, you want to cut the federal income taxes for every American, and you do so on the assumption
that there is a budget surplus. So what happens when or if that surplus goes away?
GOV. BUSH: Well, if we elect a Democrat, the surplus will go away, because they‟ll spend it all.
(Laughs.) I believe that my plan has got reasonable growth numbers. This is a plan that preserves Social Security. It
is a plan that meets the basic needs of government, including rebuilding our military. It‟s a plan that cuts the taxes –
and I want to remind the folks, I‟m the one person up here who has signed a tax cut bill. I not only signed on, I
signed two in the state of Texas. We‟ve returned nearly $3 billion of taxes to the people – good, hard-working
people who live in my state.
MR. HUME: Now, we have more time than we thought we might. We‟re going to do one more round, which will be
a sixth.
In this round: question; one-minute answer; no follow-up; move on to the next candidate.
First to you, Senator McCain.
If you could be remember for one thing as president and only one thing, what would it be?
Senator McCAIN: Healing the breach that exists between the American people and the government today; restoring
confidence in government by young Americans so that I as president of the United States can motivate them to serve
causes greater than their self-interest.
On the issue of the surplus, three years ago, every economist in America was saying that we‟re going to have
deficits as far as the eye can see.
Now those same economists are saying we‟re going to have surpluses as far as the eye can see, authenticating Harry
Truman‟s assertion that he wanted a one-armed economist because they always say “on the one hand” and “on the
other hand.” I wouldn‟t count on these surpluses, although I‟m very – very optimistic about the future of the
economy. The difference between my tax cut proposals, which have to do with the marriage penalty, the inheritance
taxes, earnings tests and breaks for lower-income Americans is that I pay for them.
We eliminate corporate welfare and we cut unnecessary spending. That‟s the way you should do tax cuts.
MS. BROWN: Mr. Forbes, given how crowded airplanes are these days, with passengers complaining of lost
luggage and delays, there are increasing cases of what‟s come to be known as “air rage.” Is it time for Washington to
step in and solve the problem?
MR. FORBES: Well, as one who‟s traveled several hundred thousand miles on commercial aircraft in the last few
years, I can testify to the overcrowding, the lost luggage, the poorer service; and also, too, a lot of the airlines seem
to go out of their way to make it more difficult.
They‟ve just put in a rule now, you‟re not there 10 minutes before takeoff time, they‟re going to shut the door. But
Washington I don‟t think is the answer. The answer is consumers saying enough is enough. But one answer that I
think would be good, I think Senator McCain proposed it a few weeks ago, and that is to have a passenger bill of
rights on aircraft.
But getting back to Governor Bush and his tax cut, I think that whole approach shows a Washington-oriented
attitude that their way of scoring these cuts is the way you should go.
The way you get growth is by removing the IRS as we know it, and also controlling spending, which under his
administration has increased at twice the rate, twice the rate of Clinton-Gore. It‟s not the way to go.
MR. HUME: Ambassador Keyes, I want to take you back to the question you were asked originally related to your
anger at what you felt was racial motivation behind the failure of journalists to pay appropriate attention to your
candidacy.
There are other black political figures, Republican and Democrat alike – Jesse Jackson and Colin Powell being
signal examples – who have not experienced this problem. Why do you suppose you have and not they?
MR. KEYES: Oh, because I think the problem is classic racism, stereotyping.
If you‟re not in the mold that‟s supposed to correspond to what you folks say is “black,” what you claim are
supposed to be the attributes of the race, then you‟re shut out. And basically, I don‟t fit that mold. I am an American
who happens not to be a Democrat, not to be a liberal. I am strongly pro-life, as opposed to Colin Powell. I believe
in the values that this nation was built upon, starting with our great Declaration of Independence that says that God
gave us our rights and that it is not a question of human choice whether or not we grant those rights to babies in the
womb.
That‟s what I‟m about.
I‟m a moral conservative. And the people who support me around the country are folks who are responding to that
appeal to restore our allegiance to the deep and great moral principles of this country and our respect for our
constitutional obligation to our posterity. We‟ve all forgotten that obligation, haven‟t we? “To secure the blessings
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” And that means that killing babes in the womb is a fundamental violation
of the culminating goal of our Constitution.
MS. BROWN: Mr. Bauer, six states have passed laws allowing for medicinal marijuana.
Is it time for the government to regulate marijuana for medicinal purposes?
MR. BAUER: No, I think those laws are a terrible mistake, Karen. We‟ve been losing the drug war in this country.
I still remember during the Reagan years, where I served for eight years as undersecretary of Education and then as
Reagan‟s domestic policy advisor at the White House, everybody mocked our “Just Say No” campaign, but all the
adults in our society were delivering the same message at that point, and drug use was going down consistently.
In the last seven years, it has skyrocketed, and among the reasons it has skyrocketed is these sorts of proposals that
undermine the overall effort to restrict drug use in the United States.
I think they‟re a mistake, and I think we need to have a lot more seriousness in the next administration. I will be
serious as president in ending the scourge and particularly doing something about the drugs that are pouring across
the border between Mexico and Texas after NAFTA. We can‟t check as many trucks as we used to be able to. And
now those drugs are going into the heartland and causing pain and suffering in communities all over this country.
(Bell sounds.)
MR. HUME: Governor Bush, Saddam Hussein is still there.
What would you do about that, if anything, that is different from what President Clinton has done?
GOV. BUSH: I wouldn‟t ease the sanctions, and I wouldn‟t try to negotiate with him.
I‟d make darn sure that he lived up to the agreements that he signed back in the early „90s. I‟d be helping the
opposition groups. And if I found in any way, shape or form that he was developing weapons of mass destruction,
I‟d take „em out. I‟m surprised he‟s still there. I think a lot of other people are as well.
MR. HUME: Take him out?
GOV. BUSH: To out the weapons of mass destruction.
MS. BROWN: Senator Hatch, you have one of the Attorney General Janet Reno‟s harshest critics, yet you‟ve
stopped short of calling for her resignation.
Will you do so tonight?
Senator HATCH: No, I‟m not going to call for her resignation.
I have to say, I‟ve been very critical because I think she‟s had a palace guard around her that have caused her to not
live up to her responsibilities with regard to the investigations that have been taking place. Now in the Judiciary
Committee right now, we set up a special subcommittee headed by Arlen Specter to get into some of these problems.
And thus far, under threat of subpoena, they seem to be cooperating for the first time in a long, long time, and
cooperating in a way that I think might work out.
Dec 02, 1999 21:23 ET
Look, it‟s not my job to tell the President of the United States who he should have as attorney general.
I would prefer somebody with a little more skill, with a little more dedication, who would not listen to the palace
guard from the White House, the political types, who would do what‟s in the best interest of this nation regardless of
what the administration has to say. That‟s what the attorney general of the United States should do. They should be
giving the President advice to help the President to do what is right, and they should be prosecuting people who
commit violations of the law, and they haven‟t been doing it, and we all know it.
MR. HUME: Gentlemen, thank you very much.
That concludes six rounds – one more than we‟d anticipated – leaving a little extra time for closing statements. Two
minutes allowed now, we‟ll begin with Governor Bush.
Governor?
GOV. BUSH: Well, I want to thank my fellow Republicans and my opponents.
I want to thank WMUR and I want to thank Fox for giving me a chance to share what‟s on my heart and on my
mind.
I‟m running because I want to accomplish something, I want to change the bickering and rancor that exists in
Washington, DC.
I‟m running because I‟ve set some goals for America.
I want to keep our economy prosperous by cutting the taxes, but I want a tax system that‟s fair for all.
I‟m running because I want to keep the peace by keeping our military strong.
I‟m running because I want to strengthen and save Social Security for the elderly.
I‟m running – I‟m running because I want every child to be educated and no child to be left behind.
I‟m running to pass power back from Washington, DC, to local folks because I believe in local control of our
schools.
I‟m running because I want to change today‟s culture from one that says, “if it feels good, do it,” to one in which
each of us must understand we‟re responsible for the decisions we make.
I‟ve got a record of accomplishment as the governor of the state of Texas.
I‟m a uniter, not a divider. I know how to bring people together to achieve a common goal.
I want to thank you for your interest in my campaign.
And whether you‟re for me or not, should I become the President, should I earn your trust, when I put my hand on
the Bible I will swear to not only uphold the laws of the land, I will swear to uphold the honor and the integrity of
the office to which I have been elected, so help me God.
Thank you, and God bless.
MS. BROWN: Thank you very much, Governor Bush.
Mr. Forbes, you have two minutes to make your closing statement.
MR. FORBES: Well, thank you all very much for making tonight possible.
I hope this is the first of a series of debates, and that we have more in-depth forums in the future so the American
people can appreciate which each of us offers.
I‟m an outsider.
I‟m not a professional politician. Washington holds no allure for me, and as a businessman and CEO, I recognize
that Washington wants to dominate us, and it‟s high time Washington learned to serve us. On the tax code, for
example, why should we go by Washington‟s rules on what is permissible as a tax cut? They are always ending up
finding ways to take more of our money, and that‟s why we have to do something bold and get rid of the IRS, not let
it perpetuate. They‟ll tell us it‟s unrealistic to make these kind of changes. Well, maybe in Washington today it is,
but we the people have to say, We‟re going to tell you what‟s realistic, and this tax code is an abomination.
Same thing in health care.
Patients should be in charge of health care, not HMOs and not federal bureaucracies. In education, now George
Bush wants to have Washington have a role in promoting education reform. I trust parents, not politics. On Social
Security, why do we have to hear talk about raising the retirement age? Again, put it in the hands of we the people,
and we can move forward on the life issue.
But these things are not going to happen by playing by Washington‟s rules.
They‟re only going to happen with a determined outsider to make those changes.
Dec 02, 1999 21:25 ET
But I‟m one man. I can‟t do it alone.
You as individuals can‟t do it alone. But together, united, we can have a political system again that appeals to our
ideals. And that‟s what I‟ve tried to do with these proposals, based on American ideals. And if we carry those out,
we will vindicate the faith of past generations and will be an inspiration for future generations.
Thank you very much, and God bless you.
MR. HUME: Thank you, Mr. Forbes.
Ambassador Keyes, the floor is yours.
MR. KEYES: Well, first I would like to take a minute to speak to a group of Americans that we apparently have
been ignoring tonight, but we‟re in the midst of some very, I think, portentous events out in Seattle, where a lot of
Americans have had to take to the streets. And I abhor the violence, but I think the folks who have been
demonstrating peacefully to try to seek redress of their grievances, they‟re telling us something we ought to listen to.
They‟re telling us that when you hand a chunk of our sovereign power to a body of unelected ministers, many of
whom are chosen by dictators and pirates, you have taken that power beyond the reach of our people.
They can no longer touch it through the ballot box because nobody elects those folks. They can no longer get to it
through the constitutional process we‟re supposed to have.
It ought to remind us that the issues at stake in this discussion over the whole trade business aren‟t just issues of
who‟s got jobs and how many went overseas; they are issues of whether or not we are destroying our constitutional
system, whether we are allowing unelected bodies – do you realize the Constitution says that the federal government
is supposed to guarantee a republican form of government in all the states.
Do you know why they did that? Because if you have a bunch of people who are appointed by tyrants and dictators,
they will represent nothing but tyranny. We cannot afford to allow decisions that affect the jobs and livelihood of
Americans to be subject to a body of unelected people, many of whom represent tyranny and dictatorship.
And those people who have taken to the streets, I don‟t support all their causes, but I do understand the cause that
drove them there. It‟s a cause that is taking the power and sovereignty of America beyond the reach of the American
people.
And everybody who stands up here with me tonight supports that surrender of our power. I do not.
I believe that it‟s time we look ourselves in the eye and say we can‟t allow this destruction of our Constitution and
that we‟re going to do something about it.
And that‟s going to be one of the pledges that I will make to you: A Keyes Presidency will restore self-government;
the moral basis of it in our hearts, but also the constitutional basis of it, by not surrendering our sovereignty to
institutions that we do not elect and over which we cannot have influence, except we take to the streets. It‟s not
right.
It‟s not the American way, and we ought to commit to change it.
MS. BROWN: Mr. Keyes, thank you very much.
Senator Hatch, you have two minutes now for your closing statement.
Senator HATCH: Well, I‟m tired of the two political parties‟ establishment picking our candidates year after year or
election after election.
I‟m running a campaign for the people, for ordinary people, asking them to send – if I can get a million people to
send in $36 or more, I‟ll win this election for you and I‟ll be beholden only to you.
But, you know, this is the fourth debate that I‟ve been in.
And, Governor, we‟re happy to have you with us. And all I can say is that, you know, these debates, as good as this
one has been, have been kind of stilted, they‟ve been kind of boring, they‟re structured.
It seems to me that the way – what we ought to really do is we ought to leave the entourage behind.
We ought to get out there and understand that the American people, they want us as presidents for the good or the
bad. They want us to be a good president during the good times, they want us to be able to help them during bad
times. They want to get to know us, they want to know what we‟re all about.
I just have a suggestion to all of us.
Why don‟t we just take two weeks in the month of Jan. and spend a week here in New Hampshire, a week in Iowa;
get on a bus, all of us, leave the entourage behind, and just go throughout this state and meet with the people and let
them set the standards, let them set the terms. Do it in town meetings, and let them ask any questions they want and
let‟s just respond to them. Let‟s kind of be like Lincoln and Douglas and really have a debate here rather than, you
know, the stilted thing that we‟re doing.
And if we do that, I guarantee you, we‟ll have three things happen to us: Number one, we‟ll get to know these
people better, and better than we ever possibly could during this Presidential election.
Number two, they‟ll get to know us better, which I think is a good thing, and it would help all of us to do a better
job.
And number three, this would be real honest campaign reform.
Can you imagine what we‟d be able to do by the time we get to California. How about it, Gary? How about it,
George? How about it, Steve? How about it, Alan? How about it, John? (Laughter.) Wouldn‟t that be a good idea?
It‟d be the way to really get it out of this stilted way of doing things.
MR. KEYES: I‟ll join you.
Senator HATCH: Alan will join.
(Laughter.)
MR. FORBES: I‟m for Lincoln-Douglas debates, absolutely.
Senator HATCH: Good, let‟s do it.
Let‟s do it. Why don‟t we do that? Why don‟t we just – you know, I think you both have done a terrific job here this
evening, but you‟re limited by what can be done in this kind of a format. Why don‟t we get out there with the
people? Why don‟t we do this? And then I think we‟d treat each other better too.
MR. HUME: Thank you, Senator Hatch.
Senator McCain, the stilts are yours.
(Laughter.)
Senator McCAIN: I want to thank you, Karen and Brit and Channel 9 and Fox.
I want to thank you all. I‟ve had a lot of fun tonight. It‟s been good. It‟s been a great experience.
I‟m running for president of the United States because I believe the United States sits astride the world militarily and
economically in the most powerful position ever seen in the history of the world. This is an exciting time.
We have prospects for prosperity, for growth, for leadership throughout the world, and the President of the United
States can lead the world to a far, far better place and a far better century than the one that is now passing.
I‟m running for president because I want to reform government.
I want to reform education so that every parent in America has the same choice as the wealthy parent: to send their
child to the school of their choosing.
I want to reform the military so that we can again be able to meet the post-Cold War challenges, rather than have
one that is structured for the past and not able to cope with the future.
I want to reform the tax code, which is 35 – which is 44,000 pages long.
I can‟t do that unless we rid Washington of the special interest which has deprived Americans of their voice in
Washington. The special interests rule and, unfortunately, the public interest has been diminished.
This has caused young Americans to be beset by cynicism and alienation.
Young Americans believe that we don‟t reflect their hopes and dreams and aspirations. I want to heal that breach. I
want to make them represented again, and I want America again to be proud of its government. And that way I can
inspire young Americans to commit themselves to causes greater than their self interests.
Please join me in this great crusade.
I am prepared to be president of the United States. Thank you.
MS. BROWN: Senator McCain, thank you.
Mr. Bauer, you get your closing statements.
MR. BAUER: Thank you.
Well, let me begin by saying something to those young people that may be watching tonight. I‟m the son of a janitor
from Newport, Kentucky, and I‟m now one of the last six candidates running for the nomination of the party of
Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. It‟s an incredible country. There is no limit to what you can accomplish as a
young American if you work hard enough and play by the rules.
You know, we‟re beginning to go toward the end of an incredible century.
They‟ve called it “the American century,” and for a good reason. Twice in this century we‟ve led the free nations of
the world to defeat the great isms of this century – Nazism and then Soviet communism. Our technology is second to
none. Our system of free enterprise has created more jobs for more people than any system in the world.
But if we want the next century to be an American century, we‟re going to have to be up to the challenge again – not
only the challenge, perhaps, on foreign battlefields, but up to the challenge on issues of the heart and soul.
There are great questions facing the American republic.
Can we rebuild the American families, strengthen families so that fewer of our children will cry themselves to sleep
at night? Can we end the coarsening of the American culture so that parents no longer feel like they are surrounded
by hostile territory? Can we teach all of our children that liberty must be tempered by virtue, that the idea of “if it
feels good, do it” is not the way to live, that reliable standards of right and wrong are what matters? Can we set
another place at the table, this time for our own flesh and blood, our unborn children? Can we do racial
reconciliation and make sure that we don‟t leave anybody behind – not the child in Appalachia, the inner city kid,
the farmer in Iowa – whoever?
I believe we can do those things.
That‟s why I‟m running for president. I believe the party of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan can accomplish
these things, and I ask the American people to trust us to do so.
Thank you very much, and God bless you all.
MS. BROWN: Thank you very much, Mr. Bauer.
And at this point, we want to thank all of the six Republican candidates for participating in tonight‟s forum.
MR. HUME: And thanks, as well, to those who watched here in New Hampshire on WMUR and across the country
on the Fox News Channel.
Good night.