On October 30, 2004, KUED taped (and broadcast on October 31, 2004) a live, audience-driven debate between Republican incumbent Bob Bennett and Democrat Paul Van Dam . KUED Senior Producer Ken Verdoia moderated.

Following is a full transcript:

Mr. Verdoia: Good evening, I'm Ken Verdoia, welcome again to the studios of KUED as we near the end of our series of election year debates. Tonight our Vote Utah Partnership features a debate between candidates for the United States senate. Before we turn to the candidates, a brief note in the interest of full disclosure. This debate is being taped on Saturday evening, just in advance of our broadcast on Sunday evening. Joining us this evening is the Democratic candidate, former Utah attorney general Paul Van Dam, and the Republican candidate is the incumbent seeking a third 6-year term, Bob Bennett. Prior to air time we tossed a coin and determined the first two-minute opening statement would be offered to Paul Van Dam. Mr. Van Dam.

Mr. Van Dam: Thank you, Ken. Thank you for moderating this tonight, thank KUED for having this. It's a pleasure to be here. This is the most important election in my lifetime, and not just because I'm involved in it, but because I think things are so skewed in our nation that we need to clearly understand our options, and we need to do something, and we need to do it now. I've been the attorney general of the state of Utah, I have been the county attorney for the county of Salt Lake, I am used to working in a bipartisan fashion with the people of the state of Utah. I understand their problems, I understand how to work those problems out. My wife and I got on a bicycle a year ago, and we started touring the state of Utah for one specific purpose--that was to meet the people of this state, to hear them, and to fashion solutions to their problems. And we got an earful. We heard about education, and how No Child Left Behind was complicating and making the life of the people of Utah difficult. We heard about a lack of health care. We met people from Boulder to Cedar City, and all the way up the state of Utah on our bike tour who had no health insurance--a truly frightening thing. We heard about jobs and the economy, and how tough it was for them to get by. That many of them were just literally a pay check away from disaster. We heard about so many things: concern about the deficit, what's going to happen to Social Security and Medicare if we don't cure the deficit? And these are important subjects, believe me. It's been my objective to not only listen, but to read, to study and to fashion some solutions. Because, after all, the partisanship that we see in Washington has been absolutely unacceptable, in my view. You can't solve any problems if you can't talk to one another. My commitment to the people of Utah would be to be a representative they could rely on. I appreciate your time, and I will talk to you at the end.

Mr. Verdoia: Now we have an opening statement from Senator Bob Bennett. Senator?

Mr. Bennett: May I thank you and the University of Utah and all of you here in the studio audience for your participation here. This is number 10 in what will be a series of 11 debates in one form or another that Paul and I have had. And I've enjoyed the opportunity. Throughout all of this I've tried to help people understand that elections are about the future. Yes, you pay attention to the past, and I'm frankly quite proud of my record in the past. But the voters will ultimately want to know, not so much what you have done, but what you are in a position to do for us in the future. And we face tremendous problems in the future. Here in the state of Utah our number one problem is growth. And that means challenges with roads, infrastructure, transportation challenges, water, education, so on. And the nation, we've got to keep the economy strong, and in the world we have tremendous challenges now that we've emerged as the world's only superpower. I hope tonight we can talk about some of the things I've been able to do that I think position me for the next six years to be in a place where I can be helpful to solve those problems. Or at least work on them. Because none of the problems are ever solved, you just work on them the best you can, and then others come up. We're living in a constantly changing situation. So I hope tonight we can talk about what things can be done in the next six years, as well as what has been done in the past time that I've been a senator. I do believe that, on the world's stage, that particular assignment falls to the President of the United States. The Constitution gives the president the responsibility for foreign policy, and I have been a supporter of President Bush's. I think he's on the right track to try to export freedom and liberty to the rest of the world, while at the same time taking care of our security. So those are the kinds of things I'm looking forward to responding to here tonight.

Mr. Verdoia: Thank you, gentlemen. Now our questions tonight will come from our studio audience here in Salt Lake City. The audience has been drawn from a lot of different backgrounds ,different age groups, different demographics that we've taken into consideration and screened to avoid affiliation or direct participation in any one of the individual candidates' campaigns. Their questions hopefully will be your questions, your issues, as well. You've alluded to what could be done in the next six years ,and the first question up is from a woman who's concerned about what happens in the next six years on one of those issues.

>> Thank you. Gentlemen, the minimum wage has not been raised since 1997. Utahns who are currently earning minimum wage are living below the poverty level. It has been shown that a single parent with two children must make $11.61 now just to afford low income housing. Bills have been, in the past, been presented to congress for raising the minimum wage. Will you support this if other bills are brought forward?

Mr. Verdoia: Senator Bennett, you have the first 90-second opportunity to respond.

Mr. Bennett: Here's the problem with raising the minimum wage in an automatic fashion. It has had the effect of pricing jobs out of the market for people who have low skills. Particularly in inner city black males. That is the demographic in our country that has the highest level of unemployment. It runs 50, 60 percent unemployment. And I've supported the idea of, it's called a training wage that is below the minimum wage, to allow these young people to get jobs. If you put it, say, "Okay, we're going to raise the minimum wage to $8, $9 an hour," which sounds terrific, except that the employer then says, "I can't afford to pay that for the amount of benefit I'm getting from this particular employee." And the person gets laid off. Or gets denied a job. And as we talk about the minimum wage, we have to see if we can't find some kind of balance that keeps jobs open for those who have the less skills. I went to work at fourteen, and frankly, I didn't provide much value for my employer, but I learned an enormous amount from having to show up on time, having to be there through the whole day, having to give a day's work for a day's pay. And I was paid minimum wage. And we're talking 40 cents an hour at that time. So I think we've got to be very careful about it and I, full disclosure, have not supported the recent proposals to raise the minimum wage.

Mr. Verdoia: Paul Van Dam, your 90-second response.

Mr. Van Dam: Certainly it has not been an automatic thing, as was pointed out by the questioner. '97 was the last time that we saw an adjustment in the minimum wage. My concern is this. If we raise the minimum wage to $7 an hour, it would bring about 9 million people out of poverty. So that's a significant thing. We have been outsourcing a lot of jobs, a lot of good-paying jobs, and in their place we've had service industry jobs. Utah has become known as a low wage state. My analysis of the data that I've seen is that employers, particularly in service, in the larger service area, chain-type restaurants and fast food places, can well afford, indeed, to share that additional amount. I would support boosting the minimum wage. After all, it's been nearly seven years ago. I agree with the senator in the sense that we certainly have to train people. There's a lot more to be done about jobs, but on this particular question, I think I absolutely agree with the questioner, and would support that.

Mr. Verdoia: Now, in each question and answer round we will also afford rebuttal time to our candidates 30 seconds in length. Senator, would you like to take advantage of that opportunity?

Mr. Bennett: I would make this point about service jobs. As people look at the statistics of the number of service jobs, statistically, $125,000 a year writing software for Microsoft is a service job. Let's not get into the trap of saying that all of the service jobs that have been created are flipping hamburgers at McDonald's, because that's not true.

Mr. Verdoia: Mr. Van Dam, your rebuttal opportunity.

Mr. Van Dam: I would only point out to the senator that I have looked at the statistics, I have distinguished between service jobs that require flipping hamburgers and those that are software-type service jobs, and my comments were directed to those people who are at the lower end of that scale and need help.

Mr. Verdoia: Mr. Van Dam, you'll have the first opportunity to respond to our next question.

>> Yes, gentlemen, thank you. I'm pleased to participate in tonight's debate with the following question. I'm appalled by the prospect of nuclear proliferation caused by this administration pushing forward to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons while hypocritically telling Iran and North Korea to stop their programs. Do you agree we are being hypocritical, and that by developing these so-called bunker buster missiles that we are encouraging a new round of nuclear proliferation?

Mr. Verdoia: Mr. Van Dam, your 90-second opportunity.

Mr. Van Dam: Thank you. In 1999 the senate had before it a treaty, a worldwide treaty, and it had to do with whether or not we would sign on with the rest of the world and agree to no testing. It was a comprehensive test ban treaty. Along party lines, 51 to 48, the senate did not ratify that treaty. That, to me, is the first sign that something's going on. Being the old prosecutor, and a bit skeptical, I continued to watch what was going on, and then I saw that last year the congress actually put aside a good deal of money, or voted a good deal of money for what is called research and development of weapons, and secondly, for test site preparedness. That, to me, is leading all in one direction. In addition to that, the congress actually, the house of representatives, actually stopped that money. They voted not to put any money in the budget for research and development, and for test site preparedness. They received a rather stern letter from the Department of Defense, or the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Energy, Mr. Rumsfeld and Mr. Abraham, saying we need this money for, among other things, the research and development and for testing, underground testing is what's used. So it's clear to me, in looking at the evidence, that we are headed in that direction, and certainly your question is appropriate, how could we ask anyone else in the world to do that if we ourselves will not?

Mr. Verdoia: Senator Bennett, your opportunity to respond?

Mr. Bennett: Yes, nuclear weapons are defensive weapons. With the exception of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the second world war we have never used a nuclear weapon in an offensive way. And we never will. But we have used our nuclear weapons in a deterrent way. And quite frankly, if you look at the history it seems to have worked. Khrushchev, in his memoirs talks about the fact that America's possession of nuclear weapons as a deterrent was one of the reasons why he took the missiles out of Cuba and defused that. I don't believe that the ayatollahs in Iran care one fig what we do. I think their determination to build a nuclear power for their own purposes in their own region will go on, whether we proceed or not. We're in the process of dismantling our nuclear stockpile. The Treaty of Moscow signed by President Clinton and President Putin said we've got to take America's nuclear weapons from 10,000 down to around 2,000. We're currently doing that, we're at about 7,000 now, and continuing. I voted for research because I want the remaining stockpile to be handled in the most modern, technologically advanced manner possible, and I want the discussions about what kind of deterrent weapon we will have in the future to be based on the latest research and the latest technology, and not 1980's ideas.

Mr. Verdoia: Rebuttal time, first opportunity for Paul Van Dam.

Mr. Van Dam: We have enough nuclear deterrent power to wipe the world out many times over. One Trident submarine has seven times more power than all the ordnance set off in World War II. We have that. The research and development has been specifically for a bunker buster and a mini nuke, that's a tactical battlefield weapon. And if they are new weapons, and it is judged that they would have to be tested and before they could be added to the arsenal they would have to be tested, that's simply said by the people that take care of the arsenal. If we add it to the arsenal, they've got to be tested.

Mr. Verdoia: Senator- -

Mr. Bennett: I talked to the people that take care of the arsenal, and that's not what they've said. They tell me very directly we do not need to test because the nuclear device we would put in a new weapon has already been tested. It's already in the stockpile. Furthermore, we talk about mini nukes, Ronald Reagan deployed mini nukes, that is low-yield nuclear weapons, in Europe in the 1980's. And these have been in the stockpile all along. This is not a new weapon. We need to research the new kind of deterrent that we might need to have in case Kim Young Il or some other madman says, "I'm going to use nuclear weapons."

Mr. Verdoia: The sobering news of the illness of Chief Justice William Rhenquist this week has brought a lot of focus to the United States Supreme Court. Next question from this young gentleman is going to turn on the future of the court.

>> One of the responsibilities of senators is to confirm or reject nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court, and I would just like to know what qualifications you would look for in someone who's going to be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Verdoia: Senator, will you take the first opportunity?

Mr. Bennett: Yes. The responsibility of nomination under the Constitution lies with the president. We confirm or refuse to confirm. And I've always taken the position that I have no ideological litmus test, that I would not filibuster or vote against a potential justice just because I disagreed with the ideological position he would take. Historically we've seen justices that have surprised their presidents. Eisenhower appointed Warren and then didn't like his positions. President Bush appointed Suiter and hasn't liked his positions. So Supreme Court justices can change. And I would take the position, if the individual, male or female, is appropriately qualified by legal training and background, I'm not going to say I will refuse to vote for this person because I don't like some of the ideological positions that they've taken. I've been distressed in this congress to see the Democratic leadership break a tradition that goes over 200 years that says once a judge has been reported out of the judiciary committee, he gets an up or down vote. And this congress has said no. We're going to put a new standard in, and it's a 60-vote barrier, you have to pass the filibuster test. Never in our history have judges been filibustered before this time. And I would not participate, even if it were a judge I were intending to vote against.

Mr. Verdoia: Mr. Van Dam, your opportunity to respond.

Mr. Van Dam: I have had the opportunity of practicing before many judges at every level. Unfortunately I never made it to the Supreme Court. But that is of supreme importance to me, because that law controls everything that goes on in our country. In looking at a nominee, I would want somebody who I was convinced had rich background, rich experience at all levels. I would like somebody that had trial experience, appellate experience, and I would look at their decisions. Because I would be concerned that they have followed the law, that they understand terms like stari dicisus, which means you do look at precedent. That in order to have an orderly bench and orderly, well-ordered legal system you really do have to follow the law, until you get to a point where you do need to create something new. I don't like litmus tests, and a lot of that has been going on. The other thing, as the senator mentions, is the filibustering by Democrats. He fails to mention that the Republicans have had control of the process for a good long time, and in doing that, Senator Hatch himself, as the chairman of the judiciary committee, can decide who gets in and out of that committee. And during Bill Clinton's time only 69 percent of his nominees got approved. During the time that the Democrats have been out of power, we've approved 92 percent of George Bush's nominees. But Filibustering has become important because it's the only way to counter the other party who is in control of the committee process.

Mr. Verdoia: Rebuttal time, Senator, your opportunity.

Mr. Bennett: Yes, that was discussed by Republicans in the Clinton administration, and some said let's start to filibuster these judges. Orrin Hatch and Trent Lott both said absolutely not. Let us not cross that threshold. That's when the Democrats were in control, Pat Leahy was chairman of the judiciary committee, let's filibuster. They said no, we must never cross that threshold, because once we set that precedent we will politicize this process to a degree that it has never been before. The Democrats decided to cross that threshold.

Mr. Verdoia: Mr. Van Dam, final word.

Mr. Van Dam: The process has been politicized by Republicans as well as Democrats in the way that the whole committee process has been handled. And frankly, if I had a judge that I thought was absolutely not qualified to do that, and the only way that I had to deter that judge--and there are some, quite frankly--I would absolutely resort to filibuster.

Mr. Verdoia: Let's go back to our audience. Next question, shifting gears into the realm of health care.

>> Gentlemen, it seems to me that our national leaders from both parties have it wrong on health care. President Bush and the Republican congress passed a $600 billion Medicare giveaway over 10 years to the pharmaceutical industry. The president's tax credit proposal will cost another $90 billion over ten years. His proposal to push health savings accounts could cost billions more out of the pockets of the sick. On the other hand, Senator Kerry's proposals have a 10-year price tag of about $650 billion. Would you agree that our national leaders should stop trying to fix our health problems by throwing money at them, and if elected, will you agree to push for an act of congress to remove ERISA and other federal barriers so that effective health care reform can be shifted away from Washington and into the states?

Mr. Verdoia: Mr. Van Dam, you have the first opportunity to respond.

Mr. Van Dam: I am aware of a proposal like that that has been made in Utah by the Utah Health Alliance. A very well-crafted and logical proposal. And I agree absolutely that when you look at all the numbers, that a total overhaul of our health care system has to be done. Right now we sit with 45 million people uninsured in the United States. In Utah, 300,000-plus are uninsured. They just don't have insurance. And yet we pay 1 trillion 700 billion dollars to health care. The most by far of any country in the world, and we don't cover our people very well. The money is there to do it, it's the system that's the problem. And a great deal of that problem is in the very expensive for-profit insurance company system, the multiple companies that bleed off the money that we need for health care. So yes, I would be willing to try it on a state-to-state basis. By waiving ERISA we simply say the federal government lets the state have its Medicare, Medicaid, Chips money, everything, and then the state of Utah puts together a non-profit system whereby the paperwork can be done, the medical care can be put out, can be given to people, and if we let the states do it and we hit on a really good model, other states will adapt it. My fear is on the national level it's never going to happen because the power of those insurance companies will block it, just like they did when Hilary Clinton made a suggestion.

Mr. Verdoia: Senator Bennett, your 90-second opportunity.

Mr. Bennett: I agree with you that the health system is broken. And we ought to look at everything. We're trying to do that in my committee. I've said, look, clean sheet of paper time, here. Let's not try to take the present system and tinker with it, whether it's throwing money at it or making some other sorts of changes, although that happens and we have to vote on those proposals. But let's step back from it, and realize that one of the main things that's wrong with it is that the people who are getting the service have no control over the money that is paying for the service. Money is withheld from your pay check for health care, but you don't get to choose how that money gets spent. So there are no market forces. Relieving ERISA is something we ought to look at. We ought to look at virtually everything. Because if we don't we're going to continue to spiral into the worst of all possible worlds, which is higher costs and less service, and go in the direction that many other countries find themselves in. Now, my Democratic colleagues on the committee were appalled, they said, oh, this is just another Republican attempt to destroy Medicare. But interestingly enough, as we have tried to be creative and open, even Pete Stark said to me, you know, you're finding out some things about the health care system that we really needed to know. And I'm hoping that we can move in the direction of a clean sheet of paper change, that could be very fundamental.

Mr. Verdoia: Rebuttal time, Mr. Van Dam.

Mr. Van Dam: The questioner made a comment about the Medicare drug program, and I'd like to just pick on that very quickly. Because this, indeed, is a, I guess it's about a $530 billion program to get seniors drugs at a lower cost. Amazingly expensive, and it won't even happen until 2006. It superimposes a bureaucracy on a bureaucracy. If we had simply let the federal government through Medicare deal with drug companies, there would have been a very big reduction in drug prices at no particular cost.

Mr. Verdoia: We have walked into this realm of prescription drugs, and I know we're dealing with very complex issues, 30 seconds is not enough time. Mr. Van Dam, I'm going to give you another 30, and then, Senator Bennett, I'll give you the full minute, as well, to speak to this issue that's being brought up.

Mr. Van Dam: In looking at the legislation itself, it's very clear to me that drug companies and pharmaceutical companies are very much involved in writing it because they get an awful lot of corporate welfare out of it. They don't need it. They are the most profitable companies we see in this country or the world. And so I'm wondering what that's all about. And I simply would say that it makes no sense to continue to underwrite the costs of drugs when you can buy them 40 or 50 percent cheaper in other countries, and to say the government can't bargain for us nor that we can't reimport. That's a giveaway.

Mr. Verdoia: Senator, your minute to speak to this issue.

Mr. Bennett: Even in a minute all of these- - Reimportation, let me say to all of you, if you get on the internet to reimport drugs from Canada, don't. Because you have no guarantee whatsoever of the quality of those drugs. We've run some studies on it, GAO has done it, they're produced in Belize, they're produced in Bangladesh, they're shipped into Canada, put into packages that look exactly like the packages produced in the United States, and you don't know what you're getting. Now, if you physically go to Canada and go into a Canadian drug store and buy it, the chances are that you're getting something that's safe. But even the Canadian system is beginning to say we are so swamped with phony drugs coming into Canada in the name of this reimportation bonanza for us, that we aren't really sure that we can provide the stability for this. This is a very complicated issue, can't be resolved in a 60-second answer. We've just got to do the very best we can to move forward on it.

Mr. Verdoia: And so must we do the very best we can to move forward. Let's go to our next question from the audience, and this question turns on the budget.

>> We have to biggest budget deficit in history, and on top of that we have a half a trillion dollars' trade deficit and the dollar is falling. What would you do about this situation?

Mr. Verdoia: Another one of those easy ones to solve in 90 seconds. Senator, take the first opportunity.

Mr. Bennett: Sure. Obviously you need to be concerned about the deficit. And this deficit was brought about by the combination of the stock market collapse after the dot-com bubble, the recession hitting us in the business cycle, 9/11, the war, all hitting at virtually the same time. And the economy dropped off, tax revenues went down as a result of all of this, and the deficit ballooned. Now, in historic terms, if you compare this deficit to previous deficits as a percentage of the economy, it's about the same size as the deficit that hit President Clinton after the previous recession, and it is smaller than the deficit that hit President Reagan after the double dip recession in the beginning of the 1980's. The big thing is whether or not it is coming down, and it is. It is 100 billion dollars less than was projected, it was projected to be at the beginning of this fiscal year, and it will, projections now suggest it will be 100 billion dollars less in the year coming up. The one thing I do say to my colleagues, I'm sure that the projections are wrong. I can't tell you whether they're wrong on the high side or the low side, but when you're dealing with the uncertainties of an 11-trillion dollar economy, you can never be that particularly sure. We need to do two things. We need to be sure that the economy is growing as rapidly as it can, and we need to do what we can to hold down spending, and that's the way to make sure the deficit continues to come down.

Mr. Verdoia: Mr. Van Dam, your 90-second opportunity.

Mr. Van Dam: Thank you. This is a different world than when Ronald Reagan was around, or even Bill Clinton. Because we're going to have 7 million baby boomers retiring in 2008. In addition to that, the dollar is weak. It was not weak back in the days that he's talking about. And interest rates are low. So we're not the kind of an investment prospect we used to be. It's much more serious because of those. And those are not the only elements that went into creating this deficit. The senator has forgotten to mention excessive spending, such as the drug bill. He's forgotten to mention tax cuts that made no sense under the circumstances. I mean great to have a tax cut, but if somebody sends you a check and they put it on your credit card, what do you call it? It's a loan, and it's got to be paid back, either by you or by your children or your grandchildren. And we are now in a position where we're 7.4 trillion dollars in debt. And in four years, it's advanced more than we've seen it at any time. And it's been a combination of yes, some economics, tax cuts, a third, and spending that's out of control, one-third. I mean it's a very serious thing, and it's really, and we've really got to get our hands around that and stop. The senator voted to desert what they had in the '90's, which was called pay as you go, and that should be reinstated, and they lifted the cap. And some of that makes a little bit of sense to me, but I see a good deal of irresponsibility, and at the bottom of it I just wonder if, indeed, they're trying to, indeed, starve the beast. Because we're not going to cut things like defense, we're going to cut entitlement programs. And I think that's what Republicans are after.

Mr. Verdoia: Senator, your opportunity for rebuttal.

Mr. Bennett: The appropriations bill for which I have responsibility, which is outside of the war and outside of homeland security, which is where most of the increases have come, or education, this president has spent more on education, very substantially, than any other. The appropriations bill over which I have control is a billion dollars less than the appropriations in fiscal 2003. We are doing everything we can in every area unconnected with national security to hold the spending down.

Mr. Verdoia: Mr. Van Dam, final word on the subject.

Mr. Van Dam: The senator said something that, again, that I have to take issue with in his first statement. He said the deficits are coming down. They're not. They're going up. We started four years ago with a surplus. Then it was $167 billion, then it was $250 billion, this year it's $412 billion. That sounds like up to me. Not down. And where is it going to go from here? I mean I see no end to it. So that was not an accurate statement, I'm very concerned, and I hope I can go back there and put the brakes on. I'm used to balancing budgets. That's what we do at the state.

Mr. Verdoia: At this point in the program we offer a reminder about a resource for election year information as you make your many decisions. Once again, KUED has partnered with Vote Utah, a collection of community organizations dedicated to providing balanced information on the candidates and the issues you'll see on this year's ballot. You'll find congressional district boundaries, position statements from the candidates, as well as background on amendments and initiatives. The web site is www.voteutah.org, information at your fingertips. Now back to our studio audience for our next question.

>> Gentlemen, as a recent graduate of a rural high school I have witnessed the effects that the lack of funding has had on Utah schools. If elected, what course of action will you take to secure funds for education in Utah?

Mr. Verdoia: Mr. Van Dam, you have the first 90-second opportunity.

Mr. Van Dam: Thank you. The first thing that I would do, quite frankly, is take No Child Left Behind and leave it behind, because along with the money that has been increased, have been a whole raft of very complex, very difficult forms that have to be filled out, tests that have to be administered, and Utah is literally in revolt against that. And yet we need the money. Because of the demographics of Utah we do have more children per capita, per taxpayer, than any other state in the union. So what we need in this state is money. I would transform that into bloc grants, such as Title I, where we could get the money. Secondly, trust lands in the state of Utah. The federal government, as you know, owns two-thirds of this state. And you see these little specks of land, little sections of land all throughout the state, they're called school trust lands. Well, we don't get a lot from them compared to other states. They need to be consolidated, they need to be relocated, traded for pieces of property in areas where we can get some good return from them. In the Uintah basin, where we may have gas, we may have oil. In other places that make more sense, we need to consolidate them and bring that money into the school system. I mean these are a couple of things that need to be worked on from the position of the congress of the United States. Utah just does a fantastic job in educating its kids. We really don't need the federal government at all to tell us what to do. We just need them to help us in getting it done.

Mr. Verdoia: Senator, your 90-second opportunity.

Mr. Bennett: Yes. First, if I may, on the budget deficit, I say the budget deficits are coming down. The beginning of fiscal 2005 the projection was $575 billion, it came in at $414, and the projection now is 300. From five to four to three is going down. Now, with respect to rural education. In this latest appropriations bill I've been able to get an additional million-three in a rural educational initiative for Utah schools. Paul is absolutely right about the trust land issue. We've been working on that virtually- - My father worked on it when he was in the senate. Governor Matheson worked on it very hard when he was the governor. Governor Leavitt worked hard on it. We're finally beginning to break through on that, and we have had some land exchanges with the trust land that has made the school trust situation here in Utah producing money for Utah schools in significant amounts, really for the first time. That has started in the time I've been in the senate and we, whoever is elected this senate has got to keep that going and keep working in that direction. I voted against No Child Left Behind, because I could see that it would be the heavy hand of the federal government on Utah schools. When it started out I was very much in favor of it, and then I watched the additions that were added to it as it moved through the legislative process, and in the end I said I can't support this any longer.

Mr. Verdoia: We do have the opportunity for rebuttal time. Mr. Van Dam, first opportunity.

Mr. Van Dam: I would only comment that if an administration is going to put an onerous program together and then does not commit to fund it fully, that it isn't real commitment. Now, No Child Left Behind is almost $30 billion underfunded. That's a significant amount of money. And if you're going to say that you're committed to doing that kind of thing, it really has to be followed, you know, with the full commitment of the money, otherwise I think that's a hollow promise.

Mr. Verdoia: Senator Bennett, let me give you the last word on this.

Mr. Bennett: The amount of education spending under the bush administration has gone up 61 percent, higher than it was during the Clinton administration. The No Child Left Behind, interestingly, there are states that have money waiting for them that have not drawn the money down. One of the reasons it hasn't been spent. I think the bill has a problem, but I don't think the funding is the problem.

Mr. Verdoia: What a difference a generation makes, and I think it plays out dramatically in front of your television screen right now. The old and the young. How old are you?

>> Seventeen.

Mr. Verdoia: You're seventeen. The reason I make note of this is, when I was seventeen years old the last thing in the world I was concerned about was Social Security. And yet here is this 17-year-old young man who says I want to talk to my next United States Senator about Social Security. So have at it, young man, go.

>> How do you plan to maintain Social Security as our parents retire so that they do not need to depend on us?

Mr. Verdoia: Rest assured I will be depending on you one way or the other. Senator Bennett, please take the first opportunity.

Mr. Bennett: The demographics of Social Security have changed so dramatically that if we do not do anything with it, if we just follow the political statement that says, "Leave Social Security alone, save it," it will die on its own. Because it was started when there were 30 workers for every retiree, and there are currently close to three workers for every retiree. And there have to be adjustments on into the future or Social Security will not be available to you. It will be available to your parents, and it will be available to your grandparents, but you're not going to be able to get it if we don't do something to recognize the demographics. And demographics are not Republican or Democrat. That is destiny. I'm working with Democrats in the congress, along with Alan Greenspan and others, to say, okay, how can we get from here to there in a way that has no transition costs, but has a transition that makes some sense? And we're coming up with a formula, having to do with the cost of living adjustments for the rich who draw Social Security. We haven't got the formula completely worked out yet, but I'm talking to Joe Lieberman, and to Diane Feinstein, as well as to my Republican colleagues to say we've got to work this thing out so it's available to you, and do it in a way that makes sure your parents and your grandparents don't see the problems.

Mr. Verdoia: Paul Van Dam, your initial response.

Mr. Van Dam: First of all, Social Security has been one of the fabulous programs in our society, and it has helped innumerable seniors. As I've gone to senior centers all throughout the year, a typical one was the other day when I simply asked for a show of hands how many were drawing Social Security. Everybody raised their hand. How many thought it was absolutely critical that it go on? Everybody raised their hand. Here's the problem with it. The concept of Social Security, of course, is that we pay into it during our lifetimes, all of us workers, and then there's a fund, there's a trust fund, it's called, and it's even been said that it should be put in a lock box. But it was not locked up. And government continued to use that money for everything imaginable, and when we had a surplus in 2001, this president said that he would leave that money in the lock box. But the money got used for Medicare and for tax refunds. And what we have in the lock box now are IOUs for the future. To me it is such a strong program that it is, even under the stress that it's in right now, it is projected to last in good shape until 2042. If we made some adjustments, and if we stopped raiding it, it would last well through this next century while we decide what to do. Privatization, which some mention in the Republican party, is not the way to go, because that draws money from the fund into a private fund, reduces the amount going in, and defeats the purpose of it.

Mr. Verdoia: Senator Bennett, your opportunity for rebuttal.

Mr. Bennett: Let's talk about the IOUs. They're government bonds. How many of you have government bonds in your investment portfolio? Most businesses do, most banks do. What would you want them to invest their surplus in? Pork bellies? The safest investment is government bonds, and the Social Security trust fund is invested in government bonds. Does the government use the money it gets from selling government bonds? Yes, it does. It uses the money that it sells to Zions Bank from government bonds, it uses the money that it gives to, that the Social Security trust fund invests in government bonds.

Mr. Verdoia: At my discretion, let me give you some more time to respond to this, because at times the artificiality of a 30-second limitation interrupts us.

Mr. Bennett: I appreciate that.

Mr. Verdoia: So please continue and I'll give an equal amount of time for Mr. Van Dam.

Mr. Bennett: Interestingly, by law it can't be invested in anything else because government bonds are the safest investment. So if there is a surplus in the Social Security trust fund, which there is, by law it has to be invested in a government bond, and that's what we're being accused of raiding. The bonds are sold to the trust fund, and then the profits, or the proceeds from those bonds are used to fund the government, like treasury bills or any other form of government bonds.

Mr. Verdoia: And Mr. Van Dam, the total time to you is one minute.

Mr. Van Dam: I'm sorry, I have a different understanding of what goes on. Because once the money is used from the trust fund for other purposes, money has to be borrowed. The borrowed money may purchase bonds, but it's still borrowed money, and therefore we have to pay it back. I mean that's simply not the way to go. And so I say that Social Security needs to be- - It's going to be important for you. I had a young man the other day that told me, looked me right in the eye and said, I expect to see an alien landing before I get Social Security. And I thought, wow, there's some skepticism from the younger generation. Balancing this budget and doing away with deficits is the key to having a strong Social Security system.

Mr. Verdoia: And Mr. Van Dam, you'll respond first to this next question, which was actually phoned in by a viewer a couple of days ago. He refers to undocumented immigration as the stealth issue of the 2004 election on every level. Nobody wants to address this issue. And yet he pointed out 8 to 12 million men, women, and children in this nation are living, working, going to school, contributing to our society, without the benefit of being legally admitted to this country. The question, then, obviously, immigration is a federal issue, services are a state issue, trying to resolve the impasse in a system that nobody really likes, nobody considers a success at the present time. So what do we do over the next six years, gentlemen, to get ourselves into a firmer ground with people who are in this nation without documented legal standing? Mr. Van Dam, the first response.

Mr. Van Dam: Well, it may be a stealth issue, but everybody knows about it. The 8 to 12 million is an estimate that I think is accurate, and it's a big problem. But we have to solve problems by giving it the sufficient resources to solve the problem. First of all, a country that can't secure its borders cannot assure the security of the country, period. I mean we really have to do more about the border patrol. We have to devote the resources to make that happen in a reasonable way. I know that in the northwest they've only got a couple of people watching the shore lines. We've got a lot of people along the southern border, but not enough to really do the job. Secondly, what do we do about the 8 to 12 million people who are here? They're going to stay clandestine, they're going to stay buried unless we give them the opportunity, we reassure them that by coming forward they have something to gain from that. We have to be able to process their applications. INS is grossly underfunded and underpeopled, and the processing time for any of these things is years. I mean it simply has to be changed. And that group of people, that large, large group of people who are out there need to be assured that if they come forward so we can check them, so we can secure our country, and that we will not just throw them out, that we will give them the opportunity at this point of becoming citizens, under the right circumstances, in the future, and incorporate them into our society, and then work from there with the problem so it doesn't recur.

Mr. Verdoia: Senator Bennett, your opportunity to speak to the issue.

Mr. Bennett: It has been addressed, and it's been addressed very specifically by President Bush, who was for six years a border state governor, and who understands this issue personally, perhaps better than anybody else. And his proposal, which I support, is to say, all right, let's stop trying to close the border to absolutely everybody who is willing to risk his life to come to this country to get a job. Let's have a work permit to the person who wants to come for the harvest, or come for the ski season, and then probably want to go back to his family. Be able to move back and forth across the border, relieving the border patrol of the responsibility of trying to stop those people from coming in, and let the border patrol concentrate on the drug dealers and the terrorists. So that if a person has a work permit to come to America to participate in a harvest, and then go home, they can show the work permit at the border and pass through without having to try to go across the desert now to avoid the border patrol. I wouldn't put these people, and neither would the president, on the track to citizenship. This is a guest worker program, they remain citizens of their own country, they can come in if the jobs are here for them. Those who want to come in on citizenship should come through the normal process, do all of the paper work for that. This would free up the border patrol tremendously. We have history of this. This was the old Bracero program in the '50's that worked pretty well, and I think we should go back to a modern version of that, as President Bush has proposed.

Mr. Verdoia: In your rebuttal time, please consider this wrinkle on that. Utah's senior senator, Orrin Hatch, has been a proponent of the Dream Act, which is trying to also, in its own way, instill some order and some opportunity for undocumented immigrants living and hopefully being educated in this country. Do you support the provisions of the Dream Act? Why or why not? Mr. Van Dam, take your 30-second opportunity to speak to that.

Mr. Van Dam: First of all, I want to say that if you don't have sufficient incentive, such as after five years someone being able to be a citizen, the people aren't going to come forward. And they don't just come here to work and go back. I mean that, to me, makes no sense at all. And yes, I do support the Dream Act. I think that makes sense to me, it's compassionate, it gives those children who are not responsible for what their parents have been doing an opportunity to really go forward in this world, and it improves our country.

Mr. Verdoia: Senator, speak to the issue of the Dream Act.

Mr. Bennett: As the Dream Act fits with the proposals the president has made, I do support it. We do have plenty of history of people who are willing to come back and forth and to say no, the only desire is to come to America, they have families back there. They come to America for the work, but they would love to go back to their families, and I think the president's got this one right.

Mr. Verdoia: Going back to our studio audience, again, when I was much younger sticker shock referred to the purchase price of an automobile. Now sticker shock for me is going to a gas station and finding out what the cost of a gallon of gas is
these days. You're speaking to energy independence.

>> Yes. As you know, the United States imports nearly 10 million barrels of oil each day. As a result, our economy is vulnerable to price increases or cuts in production by other nations. What actions do you believe we should take in order to secure energy independence for the United States while also preserving our wilderness areas?

Mr. Verdoia: Senator, your first opportunity to respond.

Mr. Bennett: Well, there's an assumption in the question that all of the drilling would take place in a wilderness area, and I don't think that's accurate. We can get the oil out of the Alaskan reserve very easily and in an environmentally friendly way, and that would have an impact on the price of oil in the world. I know my opponent's going to say, well, but it's only a very small amount. In fact, the amount of proven reserves that we have available throughout the world is higher than it has ever been, and the reason for that is that they keep discovering more. However, we must recognize that conservation is extremely important. We must have the dual activity of developing our own resources wherever we can, and Alaska is an obvious place to start, and at the same time work for conservation. I drive a hybrid car, gets 70 miles to the gallon on the freeway, I'm about to hand it to my son-in-law who commutes more than I, and I'm getting a hybrid SUV from Ford. We have done a great deal. We do have lower per capita consumption of oil now than we had when the oil shock hit us in the '70's. But our per capita is so much bigger that the total amount of oil that we use keeps going up. We have to keep going as far as we can on conservation, and we have to look for new sources of energy, not only oil but natural gas, which has to do with the development of energy.

Mr. Verdoia: Mr. Van Dam, your 90-second opportunity.

Mr. Van Dam: Thank you. The senator preaches conservation, but neither he nor this administration has practiced conservation. They have relaxed the fleet miles per gallon requirements, they have actually given huge amounts away for people that buy things like Humvees, $25,000 break on the price. There is nothing in the conservation area that I see happening that impresses me whatsoever. And a matter of fact, we don't have enough oil in this country in reserves to do much good. Three to 5 percent of the world's reserves. What that means is that if we drilled- - We've got 3 and a half million holes by the way, oil wells in this country. If we go ahead- - Our country is the most thoroughly looked-over country in the world. It's just not here. We have to seriously consider what we do from here on. If all that oil were brought up, it would last the United States from four to five years, so we know that we are on the cusp of a crisis. Energy, alternative energy, incentives for that, that's what I'm looking for coming from congress, and that's what I don't see happening. All we're doing right now is saying, hey, let's go on, let's drill some more holes, go as far as we can, no future planning. Our oil resources, our suppliers are Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, and Canada. If terrorists wanted to do us in, the easiest thing they could do would be to cut off one of those major suppliers, and we just don't have the ability to do anything for ourselves.

Mr. Verdoia: Senator, you'll have the opportunity for rebuttal right now.

Mr. Bennett: There's no question but what our foreign dependence on oil is a security challenge for us. But we cannot conserve our way, we cannot alternatively fuel our way into a solution to this problem. We have the ability, if the oil price goes high enough, in the state of Utah, we have more oil than Saudi Arabia. We have it in oil shale. So we should constantly keep our eyes open to all of these alternatives. And I will say that the president's- - All right, my time is up.

Mr. Verdoia: That's okay, finish that thought, I'll give like time to Mr. Van Dam.

Mr. Bennett: We have a balanced energy plan, I'm sure my opponent will say, but it's not. We've been unable to get it passed because of the filibuster. We've been unable to even get a vote on it.

Mr. Verdoia: And we'll give you 45 seconds, Mr. Van Dam.

Mr. Van Dam: Talking about the filibuster on the energy bill, I'd join the filibuster. That energy bill is loaded with perks for big oil, for big companies that don't need it. They are the most profitable companies in the world right now, bar none. And so, you know, we really have to begin to not just talk a good game, but do a good game, but have legislation that does that. Conservation, if we had to conserve right now, guess what, we could. We could cut consumption to a place where it truly would help us get by for decades. But there is no move afoot, no legislation, nothing forthcoming from this administration that signals us or tells us we're vulnerable, let's do something. We need some leadership on this issue.

Mr. Verdoia: We have one eye on the clock, one eye on our final question from the audience. You'll each have 45 seconds only to respond to this issue, even more complex. And Mr. Van Dam will respond first.

>> The number of murders last year increased by 1.7 percent. What sort of gun control measures would you support to decrease this statistic?

Mr. Verdoia: Speaking to the issue, Mr. Van Dam, 45 seconds.

Mr. Van Dam: As you know, I was the chief law enforcement of the state of Utah and of the county, and I'm well acquainted with murder rates and guns. First of all, there's no excuse for assault weapons being out. The Association of Chiefs of Police was against that, it wasn't perfect, there were a lot of holes in it, but boy, it's a good start. Secondly, there's not very much to be done about guns in the United States. I wish there were. But there's not. Murder rates in this country are phenomenally high compared to the rest of the world, and until enough Americans believe that it's a dangerous situation we won't be able to change it. I wish I had a good answer for you, but unfortunately we live in a culture of guns, and it's not going to be very easy to reverse it. We've seen the fights, we've not prevailed.

Mr. Verdoia: Senator Bennett, your 45-second opportunity.

Mr. Bennett: I work in Washington, D.C., that has the strictest gun controls of any metropolitan area in the United States, and it has one of the highest murder rates. The challenge is that the murders are being committed with stolen guns that don't pay any attention to the gun control legislation that is in place. So I agree with Paul, here, that there is a culture, it's a violent culture, and gun control legislation has not had a history of having any real impact on that culture.

Mr. Verdoia: I am robbing Peter to pay Paul. We are now moving to our closing statements, not a one-minute opportunity, but unfortunately 45 seconds, gentlemen, because time is slipping away. The first 45-second opportunity to Senator Bob Bennett.

Mr. Bennett: Well, if I have only 45 seconds left I'll repeat basically what I said in the beginning, that elections are about the future. The question that you have to decide is which one of us is best positioned to be helpful to Utah with its challenges, the nation with its challenges, and participate with the next president, whomever he might be, in the international challenges that we face as the world's only superpower. I offer you my positions in the senate, my seniority, my chairmanships, the alliances I've been able to build, the network that I have back there, in an effort to meet the challenges on all three of these levels, and I hope you'll find that I'm in a better position to do something in the next six years that will help solve them.

Mr. Verdoia: Thank you, Senator Bob Bennett. And now our final word tonight from Mr. Paul Van Dam.

Mr. Van Dam: Thank you very much. Thanks for this opportunity. I agree with the senator. This is about the future. But one very interesting thing is that we judge what somebody's going to do in the future by what they've done in the past. We've seen no solutions to energy problems, we've seen a rising budget deficit, we've seen the threat of nuclear weapons being tested again. If this is what we've got to look forward in the future, the failure of Medicare, the failure of Social Security, then what good is seniority? I think we need somebody like myself. I think I'm better qualified to do this job than Mr. Bennett, because I've worked with the people of Utah, I've been close to the people of Utah in two different offices, I know how to balance budgets, I understand these issues, and I would be energetic in pursuing what we're doing.

Mr. Verdoia: Thank you very much, gentlemen. An important reminder of our final debate tomorrow evening, same stage, 7:00 p.m., the candidates for governor of the state of Utah. Too often, you know, the final days of our elections are treated like horse races. You can't turn around without someone, somewhere making a prediction or touting their own public opinion poll or, in the worst cases, savaging one candidate for the benefit of another. It's hard to get past that sometimes, but if you can, you'll find the bedrock of the American nation, and that is found in the ability to vote--to have your say. The Vote Utah Partnership hopes you'll accept the challenge, and find the time to vote on Tuesday. I'm Ken Verdoia, good night.