KUED Transcripts and Audio Clips

On Friday, October 13, KUED broadcast a live, audience-driven debate between Republican incumbent Rob Bishop and Democrat Steve Olson. KUED Senior Producer Ken Verdoia moderated.

Following is a full transcript:

VoteUtah First District Debate Transcript

Ken Verdoia: Good evening. I’m Ken Verdoia. Welcome to our first debate for the 2006 election season. Tonight our guests of KUED are candidates for congress in Utah's First Congressional District. The incumbent is the Republican, Representative Rob Bishop, and the Democratic candidate is an engineer and Cache Valley native, Steve Olsen. Tonight, as with all of our Vote Utah debates the questions will come from our studio audience. Representing the political spectrum, they will select the issues for our candidates to address. But first, prior to airtime it was determined Steve Olsen would have the first opportunity for a two-minute opening statement.

Steve Olsen: Thank you, Ken. I appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight. You know, as someone who's been a Republican most of his life, I understand our Utah values. But I've determined over the last few years that independent western Democrats such as Gunn McKay, Bill Orton, Scott Matheson and Cal Rampton more closely reflect the values I grew up with. To be frank, that's especially true recently.

The current Republican leaders of congress are imposters that have betrayed the Reagan legacy and have largely turned our government over to powerful special interests. In the last six years, we've added almost $3 trillion to the national debt. There are 68 lobbyists for every member of congress in Washington right now, which is four times the number when the Republicans took over in 1994. Pork barrel projects have increased five fold in the last six years. And there are so many other things that I could talk about.

These aren't the things that President Reagan stood for. Many conservatives across the country are frankly disgusted with the direction that the Republican Party has taken. I have a different vision for Utah. Again, I’m an independent western Democrat who will be a rubber stamp for nobody. Rob's a good man, he's a good Utah guy with high moral values, but he's voted 97% of the time with his party Leader, so I must surmise that he agrees with the direction his party has taken.

I’m an engineer. I solve problems for a living. What I would do in Washington is what I do for a living. I have the skills to bring people together with diverse ideas so they can use that diversity to come up with the most innovative solutions to problems. There's so much back-biting and arguing in Washington these days, we need someone that can bring people together. I look forward to sharing those ideas with you.

Ken Verdoia: Thank you, Mr, Olsen. And now a two-minute opening statement from Representative Bishop.

Rob Bishop: Thank you very much for the opportunity of being here. When I was first elected, I went back with one pledge, to go to Washington and be myself, a conservative Utah Republican who shares the values of this area. I've worked hard in the last four years to fulfill that pledge and also bring real results to the state of Utah. One of which I’m especially proud is creating wilderness on the Cedar Mountains in an effort to stop the dumping of high-level nuclear waste, next to a bombing range. They told us we could never do that, it would be fruitless to even start, but we worked quietly in a bipartisan way getting all the special interest groups together, and ultimately the delegation was successful in getting that. It was the right thing to do for state of Utah and the right thing for the military as well. I’m proud of that.

I’m grateful Speaker Hastert asked me to serve on the powerful House Rules Committee. It has expanded my opportunity to do things for the constituents of the first district as well as the state of Utah and I look forward to going back to Washington for another term and trying to do more on real solutions for the state of Utah. I thank you for the opportunity of being here.

Verdoia: Thank you, Representative. We will alternate the first opportunity to respond to each question as we move through the debate. The candidates each have 90 seconds to state their case. As appropriate, they each will also have 30 seconds for rebuttal time. Now we'll turn to our audience and our first question. Sir, go ahead.

Audience Member: Gentlemen, what issues or platforms might you most likely be in disagreement with your own party?

Verdoia: Representative Bishop, first 90 seconds for you to consider how you might take issue with your own party?

Bishop: Well, if I vote with the party 97% of the time, a bunch of that is procedural issues. There's no reason for me to vote against party leadership on previous question or the rules in starting the debate. And I actually do feel more comfortable with the Republican position than the Democratic position, which is why I’m a Republican. There are some areas in which I've disagreed and they're kind of high. I guess the two most notable ones are the Patriot Act for which I've never voted in favor of that yet and the No Child Left Behind, which I still think is the wrong approach to try and help education in the state of Utah or anywhere in the nation.

Verdoia: Mr. Olsen, your opportunity to respond. How do you take issue with your own Democratic party?

Olsen: Again, I’m an independent western Democrat. And I believe that the Utah Democratic Party has done a good job of maintaining the traditional Democratic values of President Kennedy and President Roosevelt. The main area that that's true is I believe we are a lot more insulated from the special interests. Republicans have their special interests, the Democrats have theirs. I believe the Utah Democrat Party is for the people, the average middle class family, and I believe that's the main area where Utah Democrats differ from their neighbors outside of the state.

Verdoia: For the life of me, given the nature of that question, I can't see the appropriate role of rebuttal time. Thank you for outlining those differences. Let's move back to our audience and pick up another question. This one is general in nature and, Mr. Olsen, you'll have the first opportunity to respond.

Audience Member; How are you supporting the education system?

Verdoia: And let me draw a little bit finer point on that since you're not currently in the role of Congress.
How should Congress support the public education system in our country, specifically in Utah and Utah's First Congressional District?

Olsen: Well, we need to realize that America's brain power is the main capital that's going to get us through the next few decades. It's our innovation and creativeness that's going to allow our country to maintain the standard of living we have, so we need to really have that as a priority.
I agree with Congressman Bishop that the No Child Left Behind is not the right answer. The Department of Education should be a resource for our local schools. But I disagree with actions
Congress has taken recently where they've reduced money for Pell Grants, they've increased interest on student loans and they've decreased funding for the National Science Foundation. We have to invest in our brain power. That's the main capital that we have to take us into the next century.

Verdoia: Representative Bishop, your 90-second opportunity.

Bishop: Well, when the Department of Education was established on the federal level, it was there to provide resources and research for local schools. Recently, especially with No Child Left Behind, it has opened the door to start providing for curriculum control over local districts, and I think that is a bad precedent to establish. If you want to make schools better, you have to have parents who are in control and in charge, and teachers who are given the flexibility and freedom to be creative and meet the needs of the parents and individual kids. That can only happen on the local level and that could be where we go after. I will have to differ on one simple point. The Pell Grant program - which has yet to pass the Senate, it hasn't gone all way through - was actually increased as far as the number of grants given as well as the individual size of the grants by the House. If the senate concurs that will be the reality of Pell Grants. But what always has to be remembered is if schools are going to get better, they'll get better on the local level with local control and flexibility to school to meet the needs of parents and individual kids. One size fits all does not work in the state of Utah.

Verdoia: Need for rebuttal time? Mr. Olsen, you would have the first opportunity for 30 seconds.

Olsen: I think we're okay.

Verdoia:
Waiving that? Let’s move on. Change subjects, and we move onto health care.

Audience Member: Health care costs are causing huge problems for everybody. What solutions do you promote that will control costs and increase coverage?

Verdoia: Representative Bishop?

Bishop: When it comes to health care, we're at a crossroads, which all politicians like to say because it makes it sound more serious and that we're really important then. But we really are, in that health care coverage will go in one of two directions. We either put more free market approaches and entities into the system to encourage that competition and lower the cost or the federal government simply is going to take it over. The present system, the status quo we have now, is simply not working. Personally, I favor the free market efforts to try and put in there. We have passed on the house side a whole series of acts, from associated health plans to parental rights, consumer rights to health savings accounts to try and add more market forces within the health care system. Those have yet to pass out of the senate. If they do, I think we can actually move in that direction. But we're really at a choice, a crossroads of which way we go, and I think this country could go either way. I think if we actually went with the free market approaches we would be better in the long run.

Verdoia: Mr. Olsen, your opportunity.

Olsen: One thing I keep hearing from the congressman is how the House passes things and the Senate blocks it. I would approach things differently. Rather than approaching problems with the partisan narrow viewpoint. I’m a problem solver and I would reach out to both side, Republicans, Democrats, and come up with bipartisan solutions that the senate could support. In the case of health care, we need to admit that our current system is broken and that we really already have socialized health care. The federal government pays for more than half of our health care system and we pay twice as much as other industrialized economies. The way I look at problems is you get people into a room that understand the problems, and not just the drug and insurance companies, but health care providers and other people that know what's going on. And we can come up with an American system to provide universal care for all of our citizens, relieve the burden on the middle class who is paying for all of this and often not getting care, and do it at less cost than our economy is currently paying. I’m optimistic of that, but we need the leadership to cut out the partisan bickering and bring us together to come up with the most innovative solution.

Verdoia: We have the opportunity for rebuttal and Representative Bishop, let me give you an opportunity with a twist. Is this an issue that is weighted down by a lack of leadership?

Bishop: No. It's - there is, for example, on associated health plans, health savings accounts, we have repeatedly passed, both parties in the House, those proposals. There's a majority in the Senate that is still in favor of those proposals. Unfortunately the rules of the game in the senate provide anybody, any individual senator to hold a bill or to filibuster. Until we can get that minority to support those proposals they simply have not gone forward. But those are the types of things that would make a big difference and those are the things we need to keep fighting for because it would make an improvement in the present system.

Verdoia: Mr. Olsen, you’ve addressed the concept of leadership, so tell me how leadership can have a positive impact on the subject of health care.

Olsen: Well, again, to the senate filibuster thing, President Reagan worked with a Democratic congress in the 80's and passed many wonderful programs with a Democratic Congress and they had senate filibusters then. President Clinton worked with a Republican congress. They had senate filibusters then and they balanced the budget, had surpluses and the most improved economy in the last 50 years. I don't buy this thing that the senate is at fault, that we need more Republicans in the senate when bipartisan action is the thing that we need.

Verdoia: I’m going to add a little twist, because in addition to the bright minds in the audience we have received a steady stream of e-mails suggesting questions for our exchange tonight. I’d like to turn to one right now. And if we can bring it up, “North Korea has tested a nuclear weapon. Aside from expressing displeasure, how should this nation respond? Military Strike?” This question came today from Nancy in Ogden. Steve Olsen, serious issues. North Korea, how should this country respond?

Olsen: Let me state something real quick. I don't believe North Korea would have dared to do what they did this week four years ago. The fact is that the problem where we're in a quagmire in
Iraq, our enemies around the world are looking at that and they think they can do whatever they want. And I think that is a large part of the problem. Having said that, I think we need to do two things. We need to put pressure on China and our allies over there to step in and solve the problem because they're the ones looking at having a nuclear arms race in that part of the world.
It's a lot more of a problem for them than for us. The other thing, Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico has said is we've got to quit outsourcing our diplomacy. I disagree with the Bush Administration thinking that we can't talk to people. It's not saying we have to agree with them, but we ought to talk to anybody. And I think the idea that we should just not talk to people is a big mistake.

Verdoia: Representative Bishop, a response to the nuclear saber rattling of North Korea.

Bishop: The first thing we have to do according to the reports I heard this morning on the news is find out if they actually detonated a device or not. The latest report said it may just have been a failed effort, which would bring a great deal of discredit to the dictator there in North Korea who doesn't have that tendency of working with anybody at all. We went to North Korea in 1994 and established the timelines and protocols for what would happen with the North Korean program and they quickly ignored that right after it was done. There are ongoing talks that are being done in Beijing right now. North Korea is part of that, so is the United States. What we need to do is see if China is really serious in playing a role in the world where they're trying to moderate the future and help us move forward or whether they have some other kind of ulterior goals. China and Japan have the greatest impact in putting pressure on the North Koreans. And we need to see them really step up and put that pressure on the North Koreans in some way. But first of all we need to find out if they actually detonated it or not and, secondly, we need to make sure they at least, if nothing else, go back to the Clinton Protocols put in place in 1994 and abide by what they said they were going to do, and we do need the help of our allies in China and Japan to do that, and Russia.

Verdoia: Rebuttal time? Gentlemen, as I walked among the audience tonight, I was struck by the fact that there is not a single member of the audience interested in asking a question about the 5,000-pound gorilla who is in our studio tonight, and that is in fact our nation's policy regarding Iraq. So let me be so bold as to bring that to the table. Representative Bishop, do an assessment of the past two years in Iraq and what we need in the next two years for you to say we're on a course that's worth staying.

Bishop: There are a couple of things that we could do poorly in this effort if we allow ourselves. One is to isolate the questions so Hezbollah, Hamas, Afghanistan, al-Qaeda and Iraq are separate individual items and deal with them in their isolation, because what we do in one of those areas is going to have an impact on the relations we have with the rest of it.
Second thing, we have to learn from history that if we really want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, we allow politicians in Washington to establish the guidelines of what we'll be doing on the ground in a military action once we have decided to take military force. In that regard, we need to support both the leaders in the battlefield as well as the men who are there. Utahns have gone over there and spent much time and much sacrifice.
And I don't want to say anything that will belittle or demean or degrade that kind of sacrifice they've done in the past because we have made tremendous progress in Iraq. The leaders on the field still think progress is possible. And as long as we're doing that as congressmen, we have to support that effort. When that changes, then we reevaluate what the situation. But right now is not the time for a lot of politicians who may have ulterior motives to try and establish what the battlefield procedures will be from Washington. That is a pure policy that will bring us to defeat both in the short-term in Iraq and long-term throughout the Middle East.

Verdoia: Steve Olsen, your opportunity to respond on the subject of Iraq.

Olsen: I agree that we need to listen to the commanders on the ground and that's the reason we have this quagmire. Secretary Rumsfeld and other civilian leaders have consistently ignored the military leaders on the ground. And, when we hear about the generals making positive statements to Congress, I’d do that too if I knew Don Rumsfeld was going to fire me if I didn't, because that's how he handles people that disagree with him. We need to come up with a nonpartisan plan that all Americans can get behind to bring a successful conclusion to that conflict. It makes me angry when I hear politicians from both sides of the aisle spending all their energy making up nasty names for each other when our boys are over there shedding their blood in the desert. Again, I think we need a team. We need the military leaders that have shown success over there, like General Matise and General Patrayas, we need Congressional experts from both sides of the aisle, we need senior statesmen like Brent Scowcroft and of course our allies and members of the Iraqi Government. If we put those people in a room and let them come up, look at the situation, what's worked, what hasn't, I think that group of people could come up with a plan that all Americans could get united behind and stop the bickering and the partisanship in this country.

Verdoia: I sense some separation, gentlemen, would you like to extend your comments for another 30 seconds each?

Bishop: Let me make three quick points, if I can remember what they are. First off that has already been accomplished. The president has appointed the Baker Commission, which will come up with a report after the election so it doesn’t impact the election at all. The second point that is I've heard much of the criticism but usually from sources that have some kind of ulterior motive and this is not consistent with what we have been told in private briefings from the military leaders. And that’s why I give great deference to what they have to say. The third thing is that we have allies and friends in the Muslim world who are moderates. Whatever we do we have to make sure our policies give them the reason to continue being supportive of us and not the reason to lead us away thinking we are not worthy allies for the future.

Verdoia: Mr. Olsen, you can take about 40 seconds as well.

Olsen: I agree with much of that, but I haven't been talking to the generals. I've been talking to the troops, the NCO's. Those are the people that know what's going on over there. And our troops are distraught, they're in despair because they think that America has sent 1% of our population over there to fight that war and that the rest of us don't realize the sacrifices. Many of these people have gone over there for two and three tours. We're wearing our soldiers out and we need to find a way too get them some help or bring them home.

Verdoia: We'll go back to the audience and shift gears dramatically from international to the domestic.

Audience Member: This is definitely a domestic topic. Will you support an increase in the federal minimum wage? And if so, to what level?

Verdoia: Steve Olsen, you have the first opportunity.

Olsen: I believe that a moderate, slowly implemented increase to the minimum wage would be a good thing, and I would support that. I haven't looked into the details of exactly how much it should be, but the bottom line is one of the issues of my campaign is that the middle class isn't doing very well in this country. The ratio of the top 20% wage earners divided by the bottom 20% has risen to 11 to 1 and is growing. It's the highest in the industrialized world. The middle class is disappearing, the low-income people in our society aren't participating in economic benefits, and the minimum wage is not a panacea but it's something that could help, so I would support that.

Verdoia: Representative Bishop?

Bishop: I guess I’m already on record for having voted for the increased minimum wage when they tried to attach it with making it the death tax as well as the business extensions permanent. That failed in the senate so it's still off the table. The bottom line is that 92% of all those who are considered in the poverty class are making above minimum wage right now. That might not be consolation to the 8% that aren't minimum wage. But when you’re dealing with a national policy, that is a significant issue, which means the bulk of the people who are actually at and below minimum wage are part time and basically high school kids. Last time we raised minimum wage in efforts to try and be generous, 40% of high school kids lost their jobs, and that's where the impact will take place. As far as a policy to make things better or to improve our economy, raising the minimum wage has a de-minimus impact where we want it to be.

Verdoia: Need for rebuttal time on this? Both gentlemen have made their case. Mr. Olsen?

Mr. Olsen. I’d like to comment. The bureau of labor statistics says that just a little over a quarter of the people earning the minimum wage are teenagers. The bulk of minimum wage earners are adults trying to make a living. I would disagree with Rob's contention that it caused problems. We raised the minimum wage in the mid '90's. We had a booming economy and we didn't see an increase in unemployment or in inflation. Again, it's not a panacea, but it’s something that could help.

Verdoia: Representative, additional time.

Bishop: Kids lost their jobs because of that. And we need to do is see where we can be most effective with our economic policy. This is not where we can be most effective. But it makes marvelous sound bytes.

Verdoia: Let’s go back to our audience and we have another topic.

Audience Member: How do you feel about immigration reform?

Verdoia: Immigration reform, and let's draw a little bit finer point to give these gentlemen something to go on. What's your concern?

Audience Member: My concern is having people with driver's licenses.

Verdoia: So your concern is with people who enter the nation illegally?

Audience Member: Right.

Verdoia: And are living and working in the United States and efforts to reform that, address the issue of people living in the nation illegally?

Audience Member: In other words, they would be able to vote if they could show ID, which many of them do, so even though it wasn't necessarily obtained legally.

Verdoia: So let's give Representative Bishop the first opportunity to speak to the notion of illegal or undocumented immigration and the many proposals and arguments about what we should do.

Bishop: Well, let's narrow down specifically the question. If you want to expand on immigration and reform and the border we can do that later. The specific issue is, Congress did pass this time the real ID act which said anyone who wanted to use a driver's license if it was going to be used for federal identification purposes, you had to prove that was a real citizen. That was significant because many of the 9/11 hijackers who caused the terror in this country had illegal driver's license from a multiple types of states. It was not mandated on the states, which is appropriate, but it was mandated if you're going to use that form of documentation for any kind of federal purpose. So that's what we have done specifically for that. We've also passed a law that has yet to pass the senate as well but probably will in the lame duck session that would mandate the use of some kind of documented evidence for voting so that you can prove that they are actually a citizen or not and are a legal voter. Now that’s the specific question that was there. If you want to expand that to border issues, we can do that later.

Verdoia: That’s used just about your time and I’m sure we'll get back to that issue. Speaking directly to the identification issue, Mr. Olsen.

Olsen: Well, to start with, people that are here working need to be here legally. It's best for the country and it's best for the people that are working. The question is how we approach that and how we do it. On just the limited issue of identification, we have a big problem with forged identification and so we need to do more in our country to create databases for employers to be able to check identification and make sure that it's legitimate.

Verdoia: Well, we'll come back to immigration in a greater sense after I address this issue. Because as we move to the second half of our program, I do want to offer a reminder that the full content of each of our VoteUtah debates on KUED is available on-line at our VoteUtah website. In addition to the debates you can also download the individual campaign statements of every ballot-qualified candidate in the congressional elections. And at that site you will also have the opportunity to provide questions for upcoming debates, second district, third district, and the U.S. Senate debate. Let's return to undocumented immigration, because I was the one that wanted to be broader and the audience participant brought it back on point. There is a great sense of frustration and also some reluctance on the part of political parties to wade too far in to the issue of dealing with immigration. Estimates run as high as ten to twelve million people living in this nation illegally. They are a strong part of our economy, they send a lot of money home to families not just in Mexico but throughout Latin America, even Asia and Europe. What do you perceive as the state of immigration in this nation, Mr. Olsen? Is it in need of substantial reform? And if so, what do you propose?

Olsen: Well, again, people in this country need to be here legally. It's best for them, it's best for the country. The problem I have with the current congress is the piecemeal way in which they're approaching this. It's been a big push to build a fence across a third of the border of Mexico. Well, that doesn't address the root problem. Again, I’m an engineer, I’m a problem solver. The root cause of the problem is that there's jobs to be had here. As long as people can come here and get jobs, you build a 20-foot fence, they'll bring a 22-foot ladder and climb over it or they'll go around the fence. Simply building a fence is not going to solve the problem. We need comprehensive reform. Another issue is the Bush Administration cut workplace enforcement by 95% a few years ago. And even those few times that the INS tried to go after illegal aliens at the workplace, the congressmen in that area and the politicians screamed bloody murder and called them off. I like the plan proposed by the Western Governor's Association. Governor Huntsman was one of the main authors of that. If you'll look on their website it's an excellent comprehensive plan, a good blueprint, and the bottom line is, unless we do it comprehensively, and not piecemeal, we're not going to solve the problem.

Verdoia: Representative Bishop, here is your invitation to consider the issue more broadly.

Bishop: I see it much more broad than that. In the 1980's we tried to just deal with the employment aspect of it. We made a miserable failure of it with an amnesty proposal. It is more than just employment. It is also a security issue along the border where you have people coming over for employment illegally but you also have drug runners coming in illegally, you have people from any part of the world that could come across those borders, unfortunately, with some kind of bomb in their suitcase and they’re crazy enough to do it. When I was growing up, we were very proud we had the largest undefended borders in the world. The world has changed now. We can no longer do that. What we have to do is make sure we have security along the borders or anything else we try to do in any of the other issues is simply a moot issue. It has no impact whatsoever. It’s kind of like if a bathtub keeps flowing over, the first thing you to is turn off the tap, and then you find out why it was overflowing in the first place. That's why there's a great deal of consensus with trying to control the borders. Not just for those seeking jobs but for everyone else who seems to be coming illegally across the border. I’m proud of what the House has done for increasing more money for manpower, fencing, stopping the release and the catch and release program, for having greater penalties for tunnel building, those other types of things, greater law enforcement cooperation. That has to be the first step. And then we need to deal carefully with the employment issue, because we're dealing with real people and real people's lives. We have to make sure this time we do it right the first time. Unless we can actually secure the border first all of that other stuff is simply a waste of time and waste of space and it's a moot issue.

Verdoia: I’m going to advance here in the first row, and I’m going to ask you to stand up. The last time I knelt down I was afraid I was not going to get back up. And your question shifts gears to the media.

Audience Member: Right. I thought there would be plenty 500-pound gorilla questions so I came up with a five-pound Chihuahua question. There seemed to be a lot of public support for the a la carte cable TV laws, so my question is: what are your views on a la carte cable TV legislation now and in the future? Should there be franchise fees in the city or state or no franchise fees with cable TV?

Verdoia: Representative Bishop, want to take the first shot at this?

Bishop:
I have a personal preference obviously that I would simply like the opportunity of being able to select what channels I want to bring into my home and which I do not. Right now it's part of business program that they're sold in packages. So when you're talking about a la carte, we have the technology to do that, and personally I would like that opportunity and that freedom. To basically choose what I want to bring into my home and not have what comes along with it just because it's part of the package.

Verdoia: Mr. Olsen, your opportunity to respond.

Olsen: I agree with that. It pains me that when I have my dish network system that part of my fee is going to support channels that I disagree with and would not like my money going to, and it would be nice for Americans to have the freedom to choose to not to do that.

Verdoia: Back to our studio one more time and shifting gears. And our focus is to the future of social security, is that correct?

Audience Member: Partially that. Do you support or oppose using a portion of social security taxes to fund private accounts?

Verdoia:
Mr. Olsen, first opportunity.

Olsen: That's been proposed for a while. Even the Clinton Administration was looking at that. But we have to be realistic. The transition costs of doing that are between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. Our nation does not have $1 trillion to $2 trillion to spend. We're broke. We've spent ourselves into a deficit and we just don't have the money to do it. Whether it's a good idea or not is a moot point. We don't have the money. I personally believe that social security is an insurance system.
It shouldn't cover all of our retirement, it wasn't meant to, but it's an insurance system to make sure that our seniors don't live in poverty. And to me, it would be very simple to fix the system that exists right now and keep that security, that insurance for our seniors.

Verdoia: Representative Bishop?

Bishop: Social security, unless we do something significantly different, will be there for me, but it will not be there for my kids unless you're increasingly raising taxes or cut benefits significantly.
But it doesn't have to be that way. We can actually make changes right now to make sure social security’s there for my kids and their grandkids, if we change the practices in which we're doing it. It's not really radical. When I was in the state legislature we overhauled the state retirement program. The state retirement program is doing exactly what President Bush wanted to do with social security, including giving a portion of that to some kind of an account. In the state of Utah the money an employee puts in the state retirement system is theirs, it is not controlled by the government. The state can't get to it. Social security is nothing more than a tax. You don't own the money that's put in there, you have no right to it unless when you retire people are putting in the money for you. Plus, we are investing social security in the stupidest way possible. There is power in interest, but not when you invest social security fund into government bonds. So in essence the interest is coming to you to pay you. All those things need to be changed. And we can make good things for social security so it there when my kids are ready for social security, if we make some changes now. For every year we wait we exacerbate the problem by about $600 million. And what President Bush suggested to do with social security is not radical. Every positive state program does the exact same thing that is that's all we're asking to. And I’m supportive of it. I think it's the best thing we could possibly do.

Verdoia: Steve Olsen? Rebuttal?

Olsen: I agree we need to change the system now. The longer we wait the worse it's going to be for future retirees. But Congressman Bishop hasn't addressed the main point. If we create private accounts there's going to be a 1 trillion to 2 trillion-dollar transition cost. If we give people money to put into private accounts that's going to take money out of the system going to our current retirees, we don't have the money to do those transition costs so it's a moot point.

Verdoia: Representative?

Bishop: I've heard that argument and I discount it because it didn't happen in the state of Utah when we did our retirement system. You don’t have to spend that kind of money to do it. It's a bookkeeping approach that is simply possible. W can easily create those accounts and we can easily move the system forward. But what we have to do is stop the way we're investing social security money right now and do it in a more intelligent approach. If we can give people an ownership in social security, that's a plus. I’m sorry, I don't think it will cost nearly that kind of money. In fact, history has shown it won't.

Verdoia: And we’re going to go back to another question from the e-mail list we received today. And let’s bring that up. I called this one the angry voter e-mail I received today. “While we poor billions of dollars into Iraq, Congress and the President are cutting health care funding and services for children. Tell me how this does, or does not, make sense to you.” That’s from Steve in Layton. Steve, thank you for that e-mail today. Representative Bishop, could you tell me how that does or does not make sense to you?

Bishop: I appreciate what he's saying. But I disagree with the premise in the first place. We're not making those significant cuts. What has been considered a cut is merely not increasing as much as some of the people wanted. For example, when we have flat funding or increased by 2% but people were expecting 7% the argument is thrown back you're cutting 5%. That's simply not the case. I do think the case in Iraq has significant impact for us as a nation and the future of this nation as well. That's not money wasted.

Verdoia: Mr. Olsen, your response?

Olsen: When we went to Iraq we were told there would be weapons of mass destruction, we were told that there was a tie between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and Paul Wolfowitz told us the that cost, absolute maximum, would be $17.5 billion. All of those were untrue. Now, I don't want to call them lies, overoptimistic assessments, however you want to call it, you can't say that the Iraq war has made us safer. Our nation is in dire danger right now because our military is in a quagmire in that country. Our enemies see that and they're doing things that put us at risk. We learned just last year that some of China's major generals were telling their political leaders, we ought to go take care of the Taiwan situation. Why? Well, America can't help, they're tied up in Iraq. The Iraq war has not made us safer, it's made us less safe. That's what the recent national intelligence estimate told us. Our intelligence people are saying that and it's just the truth.

Verdoia: Let me follow up on comments that each of you gentlemen have offered. Representative Bishop, you are saying that there have been no cuts in federal funding to programs in Utah that provide services to children?

Bishop: From the federal – it’s either been a flat line or it has been a small increase. But it hasn't been the increase they wanted it to be. Can I also say one thing?

Verdoia: Please.

Bishop: I disagree with the premise that was just given there. The idea of weapons of mass destruction may have been for some a reason but it never was for me. There were five specific legal reasons we went to Iraq, including the violation of 17 treaties, three of which - I won't have the time of course to finish –

Verdoia: No, please continue, and then I’ll extend a like amount of time.

Bishop:- 17 resolutions, three of which demanded military action. They violated the treaty they had signed with the United States. Saddam Hussein did. His forces were shooting at American soldiers. They had a bounty on the head of every American airman that could be brought to him and he was giving money to families of suicide bombers that would blow up Israelis or Americans. To me, those are the reasons, which make this actually a very legal war, perhaps more legal than we’ve had in the past fifty years. The second one is the national security report that you just represented gave only a very small section that came out in the media. If you looked at the entire report, it was not saying that same thing. That was one section of the entire report. We weren't safe before Iraq either. That's when 9/11 happened. We will be safe if we can convince the moderate allies within the Muslim world that we are reliable allies and that's why what we do in Iraq, in Iraq, Iran and Hezbollah and Hamas has a significant impact across the entire region and it can't be isolated.

Verdoia: Mr. Olsen, I’m going to give you the 90 seconds that he just took for your opportunity.

Olsen: Thank you. You know, I don't think that the Iraq war was about weapons of mass destruction. I think it was a strategic error that we made such a big deal out of that. If you go to the very beginning, the Bush Administration wanted to use Iraq as an example. We'll go in, take out Saddam Hussein, who is a really bad guy, and I agree with that, we're going to take him out, be out of there in six months, show how tough we are and send a message to the rogue states of the Middle East. Well, we sent a message, all right, and it was the wrong message. Maybe it wasn't a bad idea, but it backfired. And truth be told, we are making it much more harder, much more hard for the moderate leaders in the Arab world, because we've created a recruiting ground for al-Qaeda. The truth is that normal average Muslims in the Middle East hate America a lot more now than they did four years ago because of our actions in Iraq. That's the truth. We need to change course and start treating those people as a prize to be won rather than enemies. Let's go kill the al-Qaeda guys, I agree with that, but the Iraq war has created a situation where the people in that part of the world hate us worse than they did before.

Verdoia: Once again, we're going to ping-pong back from foreign to domestic and a simple direct domestic issue.

Audience Member:
Thank you for taking my question. My question simply, would you support simplifying the tax Code with a fair tax plan, HR57, I believe, is that right? Okay. Or a flat tax? Why ... Income tax, income tax, federal income tax. Why or why not would you support that?

Verdoia: Mr. Olsen, first opportunity.

Olsen: I need to look at the issues. Obviously, we need to simplify the tax code. One thing I don't want to do is create a tax that's regressive, that makes a situation where a poor person or middle class person pays a greater proportion of his income as taxes than rich people. And so as I look at proposals out there, I’m open minded, Bill Orton is a friend of mine, he's a former tax attorney, he's given me some great ideas I’d like to pursue in Washington, but we need to make sure that our tax system doesn't unfairly tax poor people and the middle class. And that's one of the ground rules I would be looking for.

Verdoia: Representative Bishop.

Bishop: Yes to both, obviously not at the same time, but either one or the other is successful. I cosponsored the Linder Proposal. The other one is also fair, it's honest, simple, easy to understand, which is what you really want in a tax system.

Verdoia: Let me ask the follow-up question to both of you gentlemen. Are they practical, because flat tax has been debated for years and it's always run into special interest stumbling blocks. Why are we going to be successful now? Mr. Olsen, why is the time right now when it wasn't right before?

Olsen: It goes back to what I keep talking about how I would work in government. I have some ideas on the tax system. I don't know what the best system is because I haven't listened to everybody else's ideas. I think we need to get all the ideas on the table, have an honest bipartisan debate on what works and simplify the tax code. I absolutely agree with that. I’m not ready to support a specific plan right now because I want to hear what everybody else's plans are.

Verdoia: Representative, is the time more right now?

Bishop: I don’t know, but that doesn't change the fact that either one of them are workable and they are far better than what we're doing right now.

Verdoia: Okay. Let's go back to our audience for another question.

Audience Member: Thank you. There are nearly 400,000 people with disabilities in Utah, many live in poverty, most rely on Medicaid, many cannot afford the services we take for granted, decent housing, dental and medical care, transportation. The federal government continues stepping back for support for these vulnerable citizens, the state of Utah has declined to step forward, so what do you say to these citizens, how will you represent their needs?

Verdoia: Representative Bishop?

Bishop: It is one of the most difficult issues that we have to deal with on how to actually meet those particular needs. Especially because as we look towards the future in budgeting both social security, if we can't get control of that and Medicaid and Medicare, if we can't get control of that, will swamp us in the future. So there has to be some reform and changes in the way we're presenting those results and those needs. I don't really have a better solution to it, though. I really don't have a good answer to say how are you going to reform that system and how to make it better. I have an easy answer to social security. That I think is simple to solve. How we solve the Medicare problem you're talking about is much more difficult and complex. Once again, it needs a healthy infusion of free market approaches into it. If you were to go ask me for a five-point plan of what I would do about it, I don't have a five-point plan. I’m sorry.

Verdoia: Mr. Olsen, your opportunity.

Olsen: I addressed health care earlier, and obviously Medicare and Medicaid reform would be part of that total solution. I do think that one important common principle with Democrats is our fervent belief we need to take care of the least able among us to care for themselves. We are messing up our values as a nation if we don't take care of the disabled and those that can't take care of themselves, so we have to find a way to do that and do it in a responsible way that doesn't break the budget. However, it's important to note that if you look at the amount of money that goes to help the disabled and what we're spending on other things, it's really not that large of a part of the budget. So I think we can afford to help the disabled. We need to cut in other areas.

Verdoia: Let's go to a question on the workings of government.

Audience Member: After several lobbying scandals came to light there was a rash of legislation to try to limit lobbying in Congress. All these bills seem to have died. I wonder if either of you will try to resuscitate any of those bills or try to put more long-term programs into place in light of these new scandals that have come to light.

Verdoia: Steve Olsen, you have the first opportunity to respond.

Olsen: You know, I've studied this issue for a long time. People have talked about federal funding, of campaigns, campaign finance reform. To me the one solution that really makes sense is term limits. If we stop making congress a career, I think that would have the most impact on the lobbying problem. Just very simply, you know, if a senator could only be there 12 years at the very least, the lobbyists would have to work a lot harder. Right now they can gain a relationship with a newcomer and it will last for 30 years. At the very least we can make them work a lot harder. But I also think that our congressmen and senators would be a lot more attuned to the People if they were there as servants and not as a career. So that's my solution.

Verdoia: Representative Bishop?

Bishop: Let me go directly to the question that you asked. There are two bills that actually did pass. The one, especially, passed the House, they're still waiting on action in the senate. But the second bill that passed the House is simply a House rule, so it goes into effect and deals with earmark reform. I cosponsored that one as well and obviously supported it. The principle behind that is simply transparency, that if there are earmarks and that's an appropriate thing, the Legislature is supposed to earmark where funds go, people need to be able to say, yes, this was my earmark so you're not hiding behind anything. If we try in any kind of reform process even if it deals with election campaign reform as Mr. Olsen started going into, if we start coming up with a prohibition, those usually fail, people can find a way around the prohibitions. What we need is simply to declare it, have it transparent. So the House reform that was a House rule that we did pass and I cosponsored is aimed at doing exactly that. So it's not that they have all died and gone away, we're moving forward on that particular area. And I think that's a major change in policy on the House side. Senate makes their own rules, so we'll see what happens over there.

Verdoia: Let me follow up and give each gentleman one minute to respond to this follow-up. There is lingering, continuing ongoing public dissatisfaction not necessarily with their individual representative but with the notion of congress in and a sense of dissatisfaction that it's unethical, that is there's scandals abounding. How do you speak to a person who might say by extension,
I’m losing faith in my government. Take one minute, Mr. Olsen. Why should people continue to have faith in the workings of their government?

Olsen: It's important that we cure the problems, and I agree with the transparency solution. We need to do more of that. But we need to help Americans to realize that they hold the power. Right now, Utah voters are looked upon as pawns. The power brokers back in Washington think that it's the people that control the purse strings back there that's going to decide who is going to represent the First District in November, not you. The voters need to take the process back and own it and that really is the best way we could do it. And I have a lot of faith in Utah voters. I think that Utah voters could lead the way for the nation and say no to the big money interests that think that they're the ones that decide. So we need to turn to the populous and solve the problem.

Verdoia: Representative Bishop, in your previous career as an educator you taught a generation of Utahns that they had to believe, they need to believe, they should believe in their government. How do you convince them now they're voting adults?

Bishop: They should believe because it’s not just a system of government. It's the best system of government. When I was speaker of the house in Utah, there were 75 members who would have given the shirt off their backs for the state. It wouldn't have been a pretty sight, so I’m glad we never did it, but to be honest, there were three of those I always questioned and always double-checked their travel vouchers as they came in. That's not a bad ratio. There are 435 members of the House. The vast majority, the overwhelming majority on both sides of the aisle are good, decent people who are doing their best in what is the right thing to do for this country. The system is noble in that respect. I don't like the way things are run in congress either. Having served in Utah, I won't let anyone badmouth Utah Legislature again because the way we do things in Utah is much more open, much more simple and direct, and I've been talking to people back there about doing some of the things in Utah, transposing them on the way we do things in Washington because we can do a better job. But the overwhelming majority of people are good decent, honest people and shouldn't be maligned because there are a few bad actors back there on both sides of the aisle.

Verdoia: Final question comes again from our e-mails that were submitted today by a voter in the First Congressional District. Let’s look at this one: “President Bush’s approval ratings this week hit their lowest point in his presidency. Yet his approval in Utah is almost twice as high. What does that tell you about Utah, your campaign, and how you would represent the First District?” Taking this political mix into account.

Representative Rob Bishop, that question comes from Linda in Logan. Take the first opportunity. Are we an anomaly or are we the only ones that have it right?

Bishop: I was always thought Utah was smarter, brighter, and better than the rest of the nation. I think that proves that one more time. It does say this is a Conservative state and I think those are the value systems that we have to go back with. I’m proud of what Utahns are doing, I’m proud of this state. I’m proud to represent them back in Washington.

Verdoia: But does that in fact shape the way you work in Washington? Do you say because Utah is so unique, I must walk a different path than other members of Congress?

Bishop: Not really. I do what I do back in Washington because I believe it is the right thing to do and I hope it is consistent with the citizens of the First District. So far I think it is. But just because of one political poll will not change what I think is the right thing to do, nor would it ever, nor should it.

Verdoia: Steve Olsen, your opportunity to respond.

Olsen: Thank you. You know, Utahns are good loyal people. And because of that, there's a tendency out there among some of our citizens to say, you know, we need to be loyal to our government no matter what, especially during time of war. Well, to be frank, that's not a healthy attitude. Our system works under the very sacred principle of informed consent. Uninformed consent leads to tyranny. Thomas Jefferson said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free they expect what never was and never will be." We've been asked by our leaders to carefully and prayerfully examine the issues and vote for the person that best represents our ideas of good government. And Utahns, a lot of us do a good job at that, but I think our leaders have tried to prod us a little bit the last six months to do a better job of it and not just to consider ourselves to be Republicans, but to look at the issues, and that's something that I’m trying to do and a message I’m trying to get out through my candidacy.

Verdoia: One of the delicate balancing acts in any debate setting is the allotment of time, and we've reached the point where we need to turn our attention towards closing statements, so we'll turn to those closing statements from each candidate. Each candidate was originally scheduled to one minute but because of the time consideration, I’m going to be able to give you each one minute and 30 seconds. So the first one minute and 30 second chance for a closing statement will go to Representative Rob Bishop.

Bishop: Are you saying I should have given longer answers?

Verdoia: You could have, but it's too late.

Bishop: I can't get that back? I’m appreciative of being here because this election really is not about me or any of my opponents, it's about you. It is your district, your state, your future. And I ... That is important to me. I think you've seen here today that there probably is a difference between the two of us. There's a difference in a lot of our philosophies and a difference in our background that we bring to this. I feel comfortable with my years as a school teacher, in state government, national government has prepared me to deliver real results to the state of Utah and I think I have a track record to back that up. I look forward to going back there again and serving in that situation and trying to bring real results to the state of Utah. There is a difference between Republicans and Democrats. The leadership. Democrats have said they want to raise taxes in an effort to balance the budget by $31 billion as well as having $45 million of new programs, they like to imply. Conservative Republicans like myself want to balance the budget by cutting spending first, not by raising taxes. And I think that is a significant and a major difference. Once again, I’m looking forward to going back there. I think I can once again maintain the pledge I did of being myself as well as producing results for the state, and I ask for you your vote. And thank you for your time and patience here this evening.

Verdoia: Representative Bishop, thank you for your time. And now our final one minute and 30 second closing statement from Steve Olsen
Olsen: Congressman Bishop just talked a good talk but what we pay him for is to vote. And the truth is, he's voted for every pork laden borrow and spend budget that his leaders have presented over the last four years. If congressman Bishop believes in cutting spending why hasn't he stood up and said I’m not going to vote for this budget because it spends too much. Again, 97% of the time, he voted with his leadership. Those votes included the most egregious borrow and spend policies, the most increases in spending since World War II, big increases in pork barrel projects.
I’m not going to be a rubber stamp for anybody. I’m a conservative too. I’m a conservative Democrat. And conservative Democrats in the House have stood up against the Republican leadership and said we've got to stop the borrow and spend insanity. And, you know, we've had no tax cuts. Deficit spending is a tax, it's a tax on our grandchildren and we need to put a stop to it. I won't raise taxes on the middle class, but I’ll be danged if I’m going to borrow money from my grandchildren to give Paris Hilton a tax cut. I appreciate the ability or the opportunity to speak to you tonight.

Verdoia: Democrat candidate Steve Olsen, Republican incumbent, Representative Rob Bishop, thanks to both candidates for participating tonight. While those are the final words from our studio, the actual final word in the First District this election season rests with you on November 7th. So until next week at this same time when we take up Utah's Second District Debate, I’m Ken Verdoia. Good night.