And tonight, on this stage for the first time in Iowa in this electoral season, we have all six of the Republican presidential candidates for what we know will be a spirited 90 minutes.   John.

BACHMAN: Well the Iowa Caucuses are a unique part of the American political process, and in more than 21 precincts — 2,100 precincts across our state, neighbors will gather to conduct party business.  And as Tom said, to express their presidential preference.  And because these are the first in the nation caucuses, their influence extends well beyond the Iowa borders, Tom.

BROKAW: And we’re going to try to do something a little different  tonight to engage all of you in this process, and with the cooperation of the candidates as well, will not have any bells or buzzers to signal the end of their time. We have asked them to confine their questions — their answers to one minute, and any follow-up response to about 30 seconds.  Now, there are no trapdoors beneath their seats so if they go over that we’re going to have find a way to cut them off and move on. And we’re going to move through this tonight by not going just in auto-rotation. We will have questions for the various candidates.  Everyone will get a fair shake this evening, but we’re not going to go in  rote step.

BACHMAN: We have some questions from viewers and we will work them in throughout the course of the evening.  The candidates will be able to ask one question of another candidate and each candidate will have 60 seconds for a closing statement. And in the audience tonight are guests of the Iowa Republican Party, and also guests of WHO-TV.

BROKAW: John, let’s begin by introducing the people that we’ve all come here to hear tonight.  Beginning at my left, Steve Forbes, a well-known publisher who is running for a second time here in Iowa; Alan Keyes, former assistant secretary of state and ambassador; George W. Bush, the governor of the state of Texas. 

BACHMAN: Next to him, the senior U.S. senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch.  Also with us, the senior U.S. senator from Arizona, John McCain; and former Reagan administration official, Gary Bauer.  Tom.

BROKAW: Gentlemen let’s begin.  Today Time magazine, the newspapers and television and radio were filled with the blood-chilling accounts of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and the videotapes that they left behind before they engaged in that cold-blooded massacre at Columbine High School.  In those videotapes, they invoke guns and video games and movies.  Now if past patterns are any guide, all three of those industries will disclaim  any responsibility for what happened at Littleton High School.

Senator McCain, first of all, welcome to Iowa.

McCAIN: Nice to be back. [Laughter]

BROKAW: Do you think that the gun industry, the video game industry and Hollywood have any role in what happened at Columbine High?

McCAIN: Absolutely. And there’s one other group of Americans and that is families — families and communities and neighborhoods — because that’s where the responsibility begins and ends.

But I’ve been saying for a long time, Tom, that it’s not just the availability of guns, although obviously it existing laws have to be enforced and we have to do other things such as pursue technology that only allows the owner of a gun to fire it.

But we’ve all known that there’s very pernicious influences that are being felt by our children.  In this tapes you were describing they talk about a specific video game and a specific character in that game.  That should chill us all.  We parents should know what arechildren are seeing.  When Cindy and I come home, our kids are in their rooms on the Internet.  I can’t tell you I always know why my children are watching.  I can’t tell you exactly what they’re seeing when they go to the mall.  It’s my responsibility. 

But I believe that when we’re wiring every school and library in America to the Internet, that each of those schools and libraries should have filtering software to filter out that stuff.  About a year ago there was a young boy in the Phoenix library that was watching pornography at the Phoenix library on the Internet.  He walked out and molested a 4-year-old boy. 

There is an influence.  We need to know what it is, and we need to know why we’re robbing our children of the most precious treasure and that’s their innocence.

BROKAW: Governor Bush, when your father became president, he promised the nation that he would try to have a kinder, gentler nation, and despite his best efforts, things are a lot worse off now than they were when he took office.  Is there anything specifically that a president of the United States can do to interrupt what seems to be an evolving cultural violence and rage in America?

BUSH: You know, one of the interesting parts of the question is that there’s so much focus on the Dow Jones industrial average today, and that’s fine.  I mean, if you listen to folks in Washington they think everything is great.

There is a problem with heart in America.  One of the great frustrations is being a governor is I wish I knew of the law that’d make people love another, because I’d sign it. 

But I do know that we can institute programs of faith and goodwill, that our society ought to welcome the mentoring programs and after-school programs — people whose whole mission is in life to change hearts, to love a neighbor in need, people who hear the universal call that I’m going to love a neighbor just like I want to be loved myself.

And so while there’s a lot of focus on the economy, and that’s fine, the next president of the United States must tap into the great strength of America, which are the hearts and souls of decent Americans.  You see, that’s where the greatness of America lies, it doesn’t lie in the halls of government.

BROKAW: Ambassador, specifically, however, besides engaging in that kind of discussion and invoking those kinds of mottos, what do you think a president can do these days that would make a real difference in interrupting this culture of violence that is so prevalent in so many communities?

KEYES: I think the first thing we have to do is restore this country’s allegiance to its basic moral principles.  We express great shock and outrage that we are bloodying the hallways of our schools with the blood of our children.  What about the blood of our children killed in the womb on the basis of a doctrine that completely rejects the basic principles on which this nation was founded?

If our rights come from God, then we ought to shape our children’s consciences in the fear of God.  And I think that what we’re seeing in our schools is the direct result of our failure to respect that heritage and to pass it on.

So the first thing I would want to do is, is get us back to that road, with a human life amendment that respects life and restores our respect for the will of God.  Then let’s turn those schools back over to responsible parents so that we can put faith and prayer back in the classroom.  And the shaping of the conscience and the fear of God will then become once again the everyday business of our schools.  I think we can clear up the void only by filling that void once again with the faith this country was founded on.

BROKAW: Senator Hatch, do you think that there’s a direct connection between Roe vs. Wade and the violence that we see in schools these days?

HATCH: Sure do.  There’s an insensitivity to the — to the — to life in our society today. When you have 40 million babies that have been aborted since Roe vs. Wade, there comes an insensitivity that affects all of us.  But I’ll tell you what I’d do. I think the first thing the president of the United States ought to do in order to try and change things is not expect from the American people something that he, himself is not willing to do.  I think the president of the United States ought to set a moral tone in this country, and ought to do what’s right.  He ought to be a person of integrity and decency.  When he goes to the movie industry — a person like this.  And that’s what I’d try to bring.

And I go to the movie industry, and I go the video tape  industry, and I go the music industry, I’ll have a moral power to talk to those people and say, “Look, let’s get together.  There’s too much obscenity, pornography, violence, and crime in our society today, and it’s about time you people started living up to your responsibilities as well.

These young kids that have committed these murders — let me tell you something, one in particular mentioned that it was the videotape “Doom” — video game “Doom” that he was playing — the kid in West Paducah, Kentucky. He had never shot a gun before, to my knowledge.  He went in there and knew exactly what to do, because he’d been playing these video games.  They learn how to rape.  They learn to murder.  They learn how to treat other human beings wrongfully.  And I’ll tell you, I’d set an example.  I think that’s the first thing that the President can do and should do.  And I think the American people will follow suit.

BACHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Hatch.

Mr. Bauer, you have talked about reshaping the morals of this nation.  When Iowans think about morality, they turn to their churches and their synagogues for guidance.  And here in Iowa, the main-line churches have talked about tighter gun control restrictions than you — than really any of the six here.  The top three churches in Iowa — the denominations — Roman Catholic, ELCA, and Methodist all have statements on this. And the United Methodists calling for a ban on the possession, and manufacture, and sale ofhandguns.  Are you asking to reshape the morals of the churches?

BAUER: Well, I think the churches should leave to politicians, discussions about the regulation of various industries. 

The churches ought to be talking about the human heart, about the soul of America.  And I think part of the problem is that some so-called, as you put it, main-line churches are passing resolutions about gun control instead of asking the questions about what’s happened in American society since that time so many years ago when the founding fathers said we were a shining city on a hill, that our liberty came from God.

You had the reference to Time magazine.  Eric and Dylan were coming to school every day, and they were giving each other the Nazi salute in the hallway.  The teachers thought that was part of their free speech to do that.  But if a teacher at Columbine had come up to those kids and said, you know what Eric, I know you’re going through some problems, but God loves you.  He has a place in the world for you, that teacher would have been in trouble.

A president — let me just say one thing — a president can do something about this.  He can put judges on the court that understand that our liberty comes from God, that he’s the author of it.  And that only a virtuous people can remain free.  And that ultimately will be a lot more important than passing another gun law.

BACHMAN: Are you saying to the churches, though, that gun control is not a moral issue?

BAUER: No, I think gun control — who in America wants Eric and Dylan to have a gun?  They violated 17 gun laws that day.  The deeper question is why did two American boys do to fellow human beings what it would be impossible to imagine an American child doing to cats or dogs.  What did we do in America to so undermine the sanctity of life that we could raise a couple of kids with empty hearts?  And I think that part of it is that we undermine the sanctity of life by telling our children that they’ve got a Constitutional right to take innocent human life if it’s in their way.

BACHMAN: Governor Bush, you are in favor of some gun controls.  Do you hear the concerns of the churches on relating gun control to...

BUSH: I’m in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, like felons and juveniles.  But I’m for enforcing the laws on the books.  I think the churchmen here in Iowa ought to hear that if we enforce the laws on the books, if we send a clear signal to people that we’re going to hold you accountable for breaking the law, that they’ll realize society’ll be safer.

In my state of Texas, we’ve done just that. We’ve — we’ve armed DA’s with extra money to prosecute people who break the law.  There’s a lot of laws on the books around the states and in the federal government.  And we need to send a signal to people.

Don’t be illegally selling guns and don’t be illegally using guns.  I think the best accountability for somebody who breaks the law with a gun is called jail — certain jail. 

But I also know we need to have laws that keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them.  I mean, that’s why I’m for instant background checks.  I think that’s a system that when properly employed will work, and work well.  And that’s the kind of law and that’s the kind of president I’m going to be if I win the vote. 

BACHMAN: Mr. Forbes, I want to give you the opportunity to speak on both of these questions — go all the way back to Tom and your response.

FORBES: Well, obviously it does begin with us as parents, as neighbors, as citizens — teaching our young people a strong sense of right and wrong.  It also means giving parents choice to choose schools that they think are best for their children, so they don’t have to worry that what they’re trying to teach at home is being undermined in school in terms of morals and values.  And so that is a critical part of it, too.

And enforcement sends a very strong message.  The Clinton-Gore administration’s been full of pious palaver about the need, about doing more  about guns.  But look what they’ve done. Prosecutions for crimes committed with firearms — federal crimes — way down.  What message does that send?  Felons who try to get guns — they won’t let them buy the gun, but they don’t prosecute them for trying to get the gun.  So prosecutions are way down.  You bring a gun to a school, John, and there is only one chance in a thousand you’re going to be prosecuted.  What message does that send?

So it also, as Gary and others have indicated, and very forcefully said, it also gets back to life.  And not just life in the womb, not just life as adolescents, but also life in the older years for the elderly and the infirm.  And as a father of five daughters, my wife Sabina and I have been worried sick over the years of what the culture is doing and undermining what we’re trying to teach at home.  So it all combines together.

BACHMAN: But you’re saying to the mainline churches here in Iowa that they’re wrong in this.

FORBES: I’m saying to the mainline churches: You have a critical task in making sure — not making sure, but trying to inculcate with us a strong sense of right and wrong, that life is indeed a God-endowed right.  If you believe that life is a state-created right or state-endowed right, then what you’re saying is those who have the power determine who lives and who doesn’t.

And we’ve seen in this century the bloody consequences of not realizing there’s a higher authority, that there is God, and that life emanates from God and God only.

BROKAW: Senator McCain, let’s move on to health care if we can.  Medicare.  Do you think it’s broken?

McCAIN: Sure.

BROKAW: And what would you do about it?

McCAIN: Well, there’s so many facets of the Medicare problem, including the demographics of an aging baby-boomer generation. We’ve got to have a place to start, and I think a great place to start would have been the commission that John Breaux and Senate Congressman Thomas headed that had the best minds of America in — together. And they had a good blueprint for a way that we could begin to address this multifaceted issue.  It would take — we could have this town hall meeting just about those.

Let me talk to you about one issue that’s come up in town hall meeting after town hall meeting that I’ve had, and that’s prescription drugs for senior citizens.  We’re asking senior citizens now to make a choice between their health and their income.  They make too much money to be on Medicare, and not enough to obviously pay for these drugs. We’ve got to devise a program that when a senior spends a certain part of their income on these prescription drugs that we’ll have a state and federal match for it.  We can’t do that to our senior citizens.

Another serious issue is 11 million children that are without health insurance, that we’ve got to expand the children’s health insurance program.  There’s a variety of areas that we have to work on, Tom, because Medicare is probably the most difficult challenge that we face in the next century because it has a lot to do with other things besides money.  And I’ll tell you what — I have the guts to take the money where it shouldn’t be spent in Washington and put it where it should be spent, including10 percent of the surplus.

BROKAW: Senator Hatch, why not have means testing for Medicare?  Why should someone who earns my kind of income, for example, pay and get the same kind of coverage as a school teacher or someone who works on a farm here in Iowa?   Take an investment banker and put him up against a cop.  Why can’t people who earn more money help make it possible for older Americans who have real need to get prescription drugs under their coverage?

HATCH: Well first of all, I don’t think you’re going to ask for Medicare with the amount of money you make.  [Laughter]  In fact, I think you could take care of all of us right up here on the dais with what you make, and maybe everybody in the audience as well.  You never know.

Let me just say this.  There are 40 million people on Medicare.  By 2035, there will be 80 million people on Medicare.  Medicare’s in trouble.  This president had a chance to change it.  He had a chance to solve it.  We would have passed the Breaux-Thomas recommendations.  They wouldn’t have solved it all.  It’s got to be much more well thought out than that.  And every possible consideration has to be placed on the table.

What I would do as president, I would get together the very best people  in the industry — the actuaries, the accountants, the doctors, the lawyers, the experts that really understand the system — get all the facts together.  And then I would lead the political types to try and come up with some solution that’ll help us to resolve these problems.

But it’s clear that we cannot continue to go with the current system, because by 2011 when all the baby boomers start coming into existence — I’ve got to tell you, by that time Medicare’s going to start to go bankrupt.  It’s gone from $3 billion in 1965 to $232 billion in 1998.  It will be $450 billion by 2008.  We have to deal with it.  And the next president of the United States has to have common sense conservatism guts to get it done.  And you’re looking at the guy that’s worked in this area all the way through, and I’ll get it done for you.

BROKAW: Mr. Keyes, let me ask you a question about what Governor Bush did down in Texas.  They’ve got a lot of kids down there who don’t get health insurance.  So Democrats in the legislature said, look, there’s a lot of federal money that’s available. We can get it up to twice the poverty level and we can put them under a program called CHIPs.  He didn’t want to go quite as far as the Democrats did in Texas, but eventually they did get the CHIPs program done.  The governor wanted to have more private agencies and churches and other people fill in.  Do you think that that’s a wise approach that we should have?  More of a combination of government and the compassion agencies, if you will, churches and philanthropic organizations?

KEYES: Well, I think that the first thing we need to do is remember that the best way to regulate these matters and the best way to achieve results is not just to concentrate on how you pay for everything, but to concentrate on how you keep the costs down.

I think one of the major problems that we have with this entire system, were we’ve shifted the burden of decision making, trying to police the relationship between price and value in the medical industry, trying to do that with bureaucracies, whether it’s private bureaucracies in the insurance companies or government bureaucracies.  It’s not going to work.

We need an approach that will put the consumer of medical services in the driver’s seat. And that will not just help to pay for things.  If the costs keep skyrocketing, what good is it to keep throwing money after those higher costs?  We need a system that will bring those costs down.

And the system that brings the cost down in every other area of our lives is a consumer policed system of competition, where people have the right to make their own choices. And given that right, can then carry the dollars that they’re going to use in a way that achieves the best results for them.  That’s what we need.  And that means that wherever we’re going to spend this money, we ought to voucherize it and let people make their own choices as to their medical care so they can decide where the most effective service and the best prices are.

BACHMAN: We need to turn to foreign policy.  I’m going to let you do that in just a second.  But I want to get one last question in here on domestic policy, Tom.  I want to ask Senator McCain. 

You have said that one — one best way to pay for family tax relief is the cut in pork barrel spending that you’ve advocated.  And yet, when you look at the pork list here in Iowa, you have said that there should be some $2 million cut in the fight against methamphetamines.  And that is a huge priority here in Iowa.  That doesn’t seem like pork barrel to us.

MCCAIN: It may not to you.  But the fact is that many of these programs may have great virtue, but we’ll never know, because they’re never placed in competition with any other program.  There may be a program in Arizona that should have been considered. Instead, some powerful member of Congress or powerful special interest, thanks to huge $100,000 checks or multi-$100,000 checks got snuck in in the middle of the night in a conference without any of us knowing a program.

I don’t think you quite get it.  The fact is, it’s not the virtue of the program, it’s the way that it’s inserted.  Every program in America should have the same right to compete with this program here in Iowa for those tax dollars, because those tax dollars come from the citizens of my state, as well as Iowa.

And on that subject, I’m here to tell you that I’m going to tell you the things that you don’t want to hear, as well as the things you want to hear.  And one of those is ethanol. Ethanol is not worth it.  It does not help the consumer. Those ethanol subsidies should be phased out.  And everybody here on this stage, if it wasn’t for the fact that Iowa is the first caucus state, would share my view that we don’t need ethanol subsidies.  It doesn’t help anybody.

HATCH: That’s not true.

BACHMAN: Senator Hatch?

[Laughter, Applause, Boo's]

HATCH: Listen, Chuck Grassley came to me early.  And I was in the Senate before he came.  But he was in the Congress before I came to the Senate.  He was one of the few people I went to, when I ran for the Senate, to see what I should do.  And Chuck Grassley convinced me that here is a renewable resource that helps farmers, that literally might help us when we have another energy crisis, like we did in the late-’70s.  I went through that.  I saw it.  And I can tell you it’s crazy for us to not do everything we can to develop renewable resources that help farmers, and that help everybody.  Now it’s too expensive right now... [Applause]

BACHMAN: Mr. Bauer?  Very quickly, very quickly.

\BAUER: Look John, this is Iowa.  We’re leaving domestic policy.  And you guys haven’t given us a question on probably the biggest crisis facing this state.  You’ve touched on it with ethanol.  The family farm in this state is being destroyed.  It’s being destroyed across the Midwest. 

BACHMAN: We will get to that.

BAUER: OK, good enough. I don’t want to leave this stage, until we’ve had a chance to talk about that.

BACHMAN: I guarantee you, we will get to that. [Applause]

BAUER: OK, there are broken hearts in this state, and we need to address that tonight.

BACHMAN: Thank you.  Tom?

BROKAW: Well, I — we shouldn’t leave that now.  Let’s just stay with this.  I mean, I want to ask Mr. Forbes, a publisher and a man who pays a lot of attention to markets and what happens.  Ethanol’s been around for a long time.  It’s primarily of interest to people in Iowa and a few other states in the corn belt, but primarily of interest to here. Do you think that it’s had a fair test in the marketplace?  And does there come a time when you say, we’ve invested a lot of money in that; it hasn’t made it?

FORBES: I think the answer is of course.  And that’s why I’ve supported having a few years of a fair test, and in the year 2007, when this current program expires, if it can’t stand on its own two feet, then it ought to go.

In this day and age when you think of high technology, and you can get literally write whole worlds on grains of sand — the whole information revolution, silicon — I don’t see why with research, getting rid of the capital gains tax so you have risk-taking, that we can’t find imaginative ways to use foreign products. 

So I think what we have here is bankruptcy, in a sense, of finding new uses for agricultural products.  And I think with a little investment and imagination, we will find fantastic productive uses that will pay very rich dividends.  And Gary is absolutely right in terms you mentioned markets.  What is happening to farmers today in markets, with their low commodity prices, is not a result of just supply and demand.  It’s also huge mistakes from Washington, D.C. — everything from high interest rates, the same thing they did in the mid-80s, they’re doing today — depressing farm prices; to opening up foreign markets; to not hurting our existing customers through the crazy economic policies of the International Monetary Fund, which has already cost us over $30 billion of exports.  It all ties together. 

So yes, we’ll let ethanol have its run to 2007.  If it doesn’t work, cut it out.  But I think there are a lot of uses for agricultural products and we should do the research to find what they are.

BROKAW: Governor Bush, as so much of the American economy is moving to the economy of scale these days — we used to mom-and-pop shoe stores and men’s clothing stores on main streets and little drug stores, now we’ve got Costco and Wal-Mart and all the other big stores — why should the family farm — and before anyone believes that I’m picking on them, my family grew up in that tradition — why should the family farm be any more protected than the corner drug store, or the mom-and-pop shoe store, or the little grocery store that we used to find on Main Street?

BUSH: Yes, I think if you asked the family farmer here in Iowa they don’t feel protected. People are hurting in this state.  Family farmers all across this state are wondering: How come we don’t open more markets for my corn and my hogs?  And that’s exactly what I’m going to do as president; I’m going to open up markets.

I support ethanol, and I support ethanol strongly, John.  And I’d have supported ethanol whether I was here in Iowa or not.  And the reason I do... [Applause]

BROKAW: Just a reminder to the audience, you only take away from the time that the candidates have when you do that.  I know that it’s so tempting.

BUSH: I was — I was just warming up.

BROKAW: Right.  [Laughter]

BUSH: I support ethanol because it’s good for our air.  It’s good for the air, it’s good for the quality of the air.  It also reduces our dependency upon foreign oil.  And if I become the president I’m going to spend money on research and development to find additional uses for agricultural products.  This is a fantastic renewable resource.  It’s not only here in Iowa, it’s all across the Midwest.  In the state of Texas.  Forbes is right, Steve’s right on that.  We ought to spend money. 

BROKAW: 2007?

BUSH: We ought to spend...

BROKAW: 2007?

BUSH: We ought to — no, we ought to spend money on finding out how to — on better and more uses for agricultural products.  Who knows, maybe someday we will be driving automobiles with — with 100 percent corn product.  And guess what?  We can grow it right here in Iowa.

BROKAW: Wouldn’t we have more markets for Iowa farm products if we allowed China to come into the WTO and opened up a 1.5 billion people  to the Iowa grain products and hogs?

KEYES: I want to address the question that you asked to Governor Bush there because I — I was reading The New York Times the other day, where they were declaring the family farm dead.  And I think it was then repeated on one of the major news shows. And folks look at the family farming system like the only thing we get from family farms is the food.

It has actually been the case since the republic was founded, that the family farm, from Jefferson all the way forward, has been understood as one of the bedrock sources of the moral character of this nation, of the sense of the combination of individuality and commitment to community; the ability to shoulder hard work, at the same that you value the achievements of individuals in the context of their contribution to family and community.
                       
That sense of individualism that also knows how to dedicate itself to the good of others, has been born and has been nurtured and has been sustained in America’s family farming sector.  We lose the family farm, and we lose the nursery of America’s moral character. We can’t afford that.  And I think we therefore have a stake that goes beyond money.  It goes beyond food.  It is vital to the future of this country.
                       
Where did we get the young men and women who were willing to sacrifice themselves in battle, rise to the extraordinary tests of war every time we asked them to, have the courage that used to be supposedly restricted only to aristocrats?  We found them in the fields of America, behind the plow, nurtured in the family farms of this country.
                       
We cannot let that die anymore than we can let America’s heart and  individuality and courage die, because it’s not just a question of money.  It’s a question of America’s moral decency.
                       
BACHMAN: Mr. Bauer, I have to get you back to farming, as well.  [Applause].  The Freedom to Farm Act 1996, removed restrictions on the production of major crops.
                       
BAUER: Right.
                       
BACHMAN: And since then we have had a huge increase in the production of those crops.  We have had a plummeting of prices.  And we’ve had a falling off of exports.  Now you have said that perhaps it should be reviewed, the Farm Act.
                       
BAUER: Yes, absolutely.  Look, the politicians in Washington pulled
               another fast one. They came to Iowa, they went to farmers all over this great
               country and they said: Look, here’s the deal. We’re going to put you more at
               risk in the international marketplace. We know that’s going to be tougher for
               you. But in exchange for that, we’re going to fight to open up markets around
               the world. And they did not keep their end of the bargain.
                       We let our European allies keep our beef out with this excuse about
               growth hormones. We let them keep Iowa corn out because of genetic
               engineering. All that is excuses because European governments fight to protect
               their farmers.
                       We need a government in Washington that will fight to protectAmerican
               farmers. I will do that as president of the United States. And by the way,
               Governor Bush, I will stop allowing China to play us for suckers. We’ve given
               them most favored nation status 10 years in a row. They dump their goods
               here. And Iowa farmers are selling less to China now than they did 10 years
               ago. The time of them playing us for suckers will end in my presidency.
                       BACHMAN: Governor Bush and then Senator Hatch, I need to ask
               you...
                       BUSH: I’m glad you brought it up. I’m glad you brought it up. You’re
               not for China getting into the WTO.
                       BAUER: (OFF-MIKE)
                       BUSH: I’m not asking you a question, it’s a rhetorical here.
                       BAUER: Oh, it’s hard to tell with you sometimes, Governor.
                       (LAUGHTER)
                       BUSH: I am. I am. And let me tell you something — let me tell you
               something. The amount of corn that’ll be moved if China gets in the WTO will
               rise from 250,000 — yes — metric tons to 7.2 million metric tons. 
                       BUSH: Opening up Chinese markets is good for our farmers — yes, sir.
               It is good for our farmers.
                       BAUER: Governor, here’s your fallacy. You believe the Chinese
               government will keep their agreements. They haven’t kept their agreements for
               20 years.
                       BUSH: That’s why we let them in the WTO. That’s part of
               agreement-keeping. That brings China into the ...
                       BAUER: That just gives them another agreement to break, governor.
                       BUSH: Yes, well.
                       BACHMAN: Let me take you quickly back to the Freedom to Farm
               Act, because I ...
                       BUSH: If you want to isolate the farmer ...
                       BACHMAN: ... I don’t want to drop that because Senator Hatch, you
               voted for the Freedom to Farm Act.
                       HATCH: That’s right. And it was the right thing to do. If farmers want to
               make better profits off of their farm commodities, the only way to get there is
               to get into the free market. But having said that, we have not done a good job
               in helping in the transition. This has been a tough time for farmers. In this
               country, we only spend nine percent for food in this country — the lowest in
               the world. And farmers are on the bottom of the totem pole as far as getting
               recompense for their work. 
                       We had 22 million family farms in 1990. Today, we have five million.
               Some of that happens because of death taxes. The family farm has to be sold
               to pay the 55 percent death tax. That’s ridiculous. I think everybody up here is
               against that, and I’ll lead the fight to get rid of it. and then doing so, along with
               Chuck Grassley on the Finance Committee.
                       With regard to WTO, I was in China in the late ’70s, and early ’80s, the
               late ’80s, the early ’90s and the late ’90s. The difference between the late
               ’70s and the late ’90s because of market and economics, and Hong Kong, is
               so stark. The best way to undermine that police state is to not isolate China
               and have them withdraw, but bring them into the WTO where they’ve got to
               live up to norms of conduct like the rest of the world. And that will help Iowa
               farmers. It’ll help farmers all over this land. 
                       One other thing — it’s pathetic in this country ...
                       BROKAW: Senator ...
                       HATCH: ... I’ll finish with this — it’s pathetic in this country that
               state-inspected meat cannot be sold outside of the state, while we take foreign
               meat in here and sell it all over the country.
                      We’re going to change that, and I’m in the process of doing that now.
                       BROKAW: I’ve been reading the Iowa Republican Party platform.
               We’re here in the state of Iowa. 
                       BROKAW: And I have for each of you some questions that arise out of
               the very graphic language in that platform. 
                       If I could begin with you, Mr. Forbes. It calls for the elimination of the
               minimum wage — the Iowa Republican Party platform. Do you think that’s a
               good idea?
                       FORBES: On a national level, on a state level, if they have a state
               minimum wage, and I don’t know if they do, if they want to get rid of it, fine.
               But they are under federal law, we have a minimum wage, and there’s no way
               they can opt out of that.
                       But in terms of minimum wage, Tom, I think the best way to raise wages
               in this country is not through government decree. The Europeans have tried
               that and the result is massive unemployment among young people. 
                       The way to do it is remove barriers to people getting ahead, have
               investment incentives, get more growth than we have today, which we’re
               capable of doing in productivity.
                       In my part of the world, Tom, you can’t hire people for less than $6 or
               $6.50. That’s the way to bring it up, not through fiat. The Europeans tried it,
               doesn’t work.
                       BROKAW: Senator McCain, in the Iowa Republican Party platform
               they call for the prohibition of women in any combat role. No one on this stage
               or almost in America has more combat experience than you do. Do you think
               that’s a good idea — prohibit women from combat?
                       MCCAIN: No, I don’t. And it’s already been proven in the Persian Gulf
               War that women performed extraordinarily, with heroism and skill and
               courage, including in a POW experience.
                       I want to go back to ethanol. It was a program...
                       (LAUGHTER)
                       It was a program — it was a program at the height of the energy crisis
               that was brought in, was supposed to be phased out, and obviously 2007 is
               quite a while — 35 years. 
                       But the fact is, we know why farmers have been hurting so much, it’s
               because the Asian markets went down and they were unable to export. And
               the fact is, now we will be able to export.
                       I agree with George Bush that China will absorb these exports. Every
               nation in the world should be open to our best products. The best and most
               productive farmer in the world is the farmer of Iowa. And the people in Beijing
               and Bangkok and Paris will be eating Iowa pork and they’ll love every minute
               of it when I’m president of the United States.
                       (APPLAUSE)
                       BROKAW: If I could get back to the Iowa party platform. Mr. Bauer, it
               says that creationism is a science, and evolution is a theory, and they ought to
               be taught equitably in the schools. Do you agree with the entire premise of that
               statement in the Iowa Republican Party platform?
                       BAUER: Well, here’s what I agree with, Tom, that the majority of the
               American people believe that God had a hand in the creation of life on earth.
                       BROKAW: Do you think one’s a science, and one’s a theory, though?
                       BAUER: I think that certainly evolution is a theory, and yet it’s taught in
               our schools as if it cannot be questioned. If you ask the American people what
               they want about this, they want their children exposed to both of those ideas.
               That’s what an education ought to be about — presenting to young people a
               variety of choices, and let them make the decision. And by the way, as I sense
               a follow-up, let me just say, if you want to read a wacko platform, you ought
               to try reading the Iowa Democratic Party platform.
                       (LAUGHTER) 
                       (APPLAUSE)
                       BROKAW: I get the impression we have some Iowa Republicans in the
               hall, here.
                       Senator Hatch, continuing with the Iowa GOP platform. They call for the
               elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency. Do you think that’s a
               good idea?
                       HATCH: No, I don’t. I mean, I don’t agree with environmental
               extremism, that would make us uncompetitive with the rest of the world. One
               of the first things I said I would do — I listed yesterday for everybody, seven
               things I’d do the first day I was in office. And one of them is, I would revoke
               the Kyoto Accords. The Kyoto Accords place environmental extreme
               requirements on the United States, but nobody else. And in the final analysis,
               there’s no real reason — scientific or otherwise — why that should occur. 
                       It would cost the average family $30,000 more. It would cost our senior
               citizens — Iowa senior citizens, and you have of senior citizens in this state —
               it would cost them $1,500 to $3,000 more for fuel costs alone, every year.
               Can you imagine? And that’s why we would revert — revoke that, because
               it’s environmental extremism at its worst.
                       Now I think the — but having said that, all of us believe in clean air,
               clean water, in a better quality of life. 
                       HATCH: And the Environmental Protection Agency, properly run by a
               Hatch administration, would do a job likes never been done before and I think
               everybody in Iowa will be darn glad about it.
                       BROKAW: Governor Bush, I have a kind of two-part question. I just
               want to clarify one thing. The platform also calls for the elimination and the
               phasing out of Medicare and Medicaid and privatize those programs entirely.
                      BUSH: No.
                       BROKAW: Bad idea?
                       BUSH: I think it is. I think Medicare is the responsibility of the federal
               government. It’s a commitment we’ve got to keep. The problem with
               Medicare is it’s run by 135,000, more or less, page document where all —
               where the government decides everything. They decide how the patient
               chooses things and how the doctors perform. 
                       I think we need to give patients more choice and doctors more flexibility.
               I — and so I think it’s a bad idea.
                       BROKAW: You told my colleague and friend, Tim Russert, on “Meet
               the Press,” that you think that patients should have the right to sue their HMO.
                       BUSH: I do.
                       BROKAW: And then I looked at your Web site and it has a caveat,
               “federally approved HMOs.” Did you mean for it to have that caveat? Or
               does everyone who belongs to an HMO have the right to sue?
                       BUSH: Well, what I — let me tell you what I told Mr. Russert. I talked
               about a piece of law that — that we enacted in Texas. And here’s — here’s
               the law. It says if you’ve got a complaint with your HMO, you the patient, you
               can take your complaint to what’s called an independent review organization,
               an IRO. It’s a group of objective-minded people that hear your claim, that
               hear your cause.
                       If they decide — if the objective folks decide that the HMO is wrong,
               and the HMO ignores the finding, that then becomes a cause of action. And
               I’m not exactly sure of the wording on the web site, but I am sure it’s talking
               about making sure federal law does not preempt the good piece of legislation
               we have in the state of Texas.
                       You see, I believe — I believe in — I believe states should run most of
               their business. I believe — I believe strongly that the government closest to the
               people is that which governs best.
                       BROKAW: Though as I read the web site, and as others have read it,
               said “federally approved HMOs.”
                       BUSH: Well because — that’s because we covered state —
               non-federally approved HMO’s in my state of Texas.
                       BROKAW: But you would make this the national standard? You would
               have — you would have a national review board and make that possible for
               everyone?
                       BUSH: Yes, I would.
                       KEYES: (inaudible)
                       BROKAW: Alan Keyes.
                       BACHMAN: If I could quickly — a related question on Medicare that a
               lot of our viewers asked about, and we want to try to get one of those
               questions in. We’ll ask Mr. Keyes — Medicare payments to hospitals and
               insurers and doctors are so inequitable when you look at various states. That’s
               what we received in many mails to us. Because here in Iowa, the payment per
               enrollee is under $3,500 and the national average is above $5,000. And this
               strains hospitals. Some hospitals are closing. Can it be made more equitable?
                       KEYES: I think one of the problems you’re faced with there is that
               you’re making determinations in bureaucracies that ought to, in fact, to be
               made in the marketplace. Costs are different in different parts of the country.
               They would be reflected in the marketplace if people have the opportunity to
               make the choices I think that they ought to have the opportunity to make,
               rather than having those limits imposed upon them by bureaucratic
               determination and fiat.
                       There are differences. You can’t site a national average and then say we
               should have uniform payments everywhere. It would make no sense. But at the
               same time, bureaucracies may not come up with the best answer.
                       I want to try one thing, because I have to draw a contrast here on the
               trade issue between myself and I guess everybody else who’s sitting up here,
               because they’re busy arguing about whether China should be in the World
               Trade Organization or out of the World Trade Organization. And I look at it
               an organization that is unrepresentative, elected by no one, where dictators
               and tyrants have the same right to send representatives to make substantive
              decisions that the representatives of this free people have — making decisions
               that will affect our jobs and our livelihood in a fashion totally contrary to our
               Constitution.
                       I don’t think the question is whether China should belong to the World
               Trade Organization. I think the question is whether the United States should
               belong to an organization that violates every constitutional principle.
                       (APPLAUSE)
                       BACHMAN: Mr. Forbes — very briefly — you believe that we should
               be a part of the WTO.
                       FORBES: The what?
                       BACHMAN: The WTO.
                       FORBES: I believe we should, but I have no illusions about it. I have
               compared the WTO, John, to a Woolly Mammoth without the charm.
                       (LAUGHTER)
                       It is so big — it is so big that this next round of negotiations that they
               wanted to kick off in Seattle — the last one the Uruguay round, took 13
               years. This one’s going to take probably 25 or 30 years. I think we should
               take action on our own. And that’s why I proposed, for example, doing a
               North Atlantic free trade agreement with Ireland and Britain, bringing on the
               Pacific side, Australia, New Zealand and other nations. Do it ourselves. We
               can’t wait for the WTO. It’s useless.
                       BROKAW: Mr. Forbes, thank you very much. Now we come to that
               portion of the program, tonight, in which by drawing, the candidates get to ask
               each other questions. And for the second time tonight, Gary Bauer gets to
               begin by asking Governor Bush a question.
                       (LAUGHTER)
                       BUSH: It’s becoming a habit.
                       BAUER: Yes it is. Governor Bush, I believe strongly that the big civil
               rights challenge going into the next century, will be whether or not we can set
               another place at the table for America’s unborn children. America’s always
               been about welcoming other people to the table.
                       You’ve said you don’t want to leave one child behind, but 1.5 million
               children a year are being left behind. My judges will be pro-life. I want Roe vs.
               Wade to be overturned. 
                       I want to ask you a simple yes or no question. Will you commit tonight to
               having a pro-life running mate? I’m willing to say that Governor Christie Todd
               Whitman of New Jersey, the pro-abortion Republican governor, doesn’t need
               to stick close to her phone. I won’t be calling her to be my running mate. Are
               you willing to make a similar commitment for a pro-life running mate?
                       BUSH: I think it’s incredibly presumptive for someone who has yet to
               earn his party’s nomination to be picking vice presidents. I’ll tell you what I
               will do. I’ll name somebody — I’ll name somebody who can be the president.
               That ought to be the main criteria for any one of us who has the opportunity to
               pick a vice president, Gary. It’s going to be can that person serve as president
               of the United States?
                       I also am going to ask the question, will the person be loyal? There’s
               nothing that can be worse than have a vice president be disloyal to the
               president. And of course I would expect that person to share my conservative
               views. 
                       BAUER: Governor, I — we get a follow-up as I understand. Governor,
               I...
                       BUSH: You do?
                       BROKAW ??: No.
                       BAUER: Well, that was my understanding. 
                       BACHMAN: No...
                       BAUER: We don’t?
                       BUSH: But you can if you want.
                       BAUER: He wants me to give him a follow-up.
                       (LAUGHTER)
                       BACHMAN: No follow-up, no. In fact, Mr. Forbes, you now ask a
               question of Mr. Bauer. 
                       So you will receive.
                       BAUER: OK.
                       (LAUGHTER)
                       FORBES: Well, Gary...
                       BAUER: Yes, Steve?
                       FORBES: ... one of the great destructive forces in the world today, I
               think, is the International Monetary Fund and the disastrous prescriptions they
               give to countries, raising taxes, devaluing their money, wreaking havoc. Their
               prescriptions, with — along with our
                      Treasury Department, have cost farmers $30 billion in agricultural
               exports. They’ve brought about a huge disaster in Mexico. 
                       Would you agree with me that the International Monetary Fund should
               go to the political equivalent of “Jurassic Park,” and we have true free
               enterprise, free market economic prescriptions for these countries, instead of
               this unnecessary austerity and devastation?
                       BAUER: Steve, I think there’s a whole group of these international
               organizations, like the WTO, that Alan referred to, the International Monetary
               Fund, a lot of the things, quite frankly, that the United Nations has been
               engaged in. I think we need to review all of those things.
                       We’re sacrificing too much of America’s sovereignty. We’re being
               plagued by suckers, by international bureaucrats. And the good taxpayers of
               this state are having their hard earned money to not only subsidize the
               politicians in Washington, D.C., but a lot of bureaucrats in these international
               organizations that they can’t touch through the election process.
                       So, yes, I would review it, and I would reform it or get rid of it.
                       FORBES: I hope you get rid — I hope we make a pledge to get rid of it,
               because I think it’s beyond repair, and the farmers would agree.
                       BAUER: Now, that was a follow-up.
                       BROKAW: No provisions, as I remember, for a colloquy. But we, you
               know, we like to have them.
                       Alan Keyes, you get to ask the next question. And as you — as you
               know, you get to ask the next question of Senator Hatch.
                       KEYES: Senator Hatch, I heard with some curiosity I think in the last
               debate that you were defending the decision of the judge in the Microsoft
               case.
                       KEYES: And I have to confess that decision worries me. Because I think
               it’s a little bit of a departure to start defining the ownership of a product that
               has been produced by one’s own ingenuity, as a monopoly. Of course you
               have a monopoly on products that you make yourself. And it has always been
               understood that part of making a profit is to take advantage of that monopoly
               to get the best deal you can, when you bring that product to the marketplace.
                       Aren’t we just punishing Microsoft, because, in fact, it is a successful
               product which the government now wants to step in and take over in the most
               socialist fashion imaginable?
                       (APPLAUSE)
                       HATCH: Not according to one of the best federal judges in the country,
               who wrote an exhaustive opinion, showing how Microsoft is not just a
               monopoly, but Microsoft has been using its monopoly power to stifle
               innovation, and creativity, and opportunity for others. At least this what this
               judge seems to be finding.
                       And I have to say that we had literally hundreds, if not thousands of
               people complaining to me, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee to look into
               this, because they felt that they were being snuffed out of business by
               Microsoft. One in particular, testified that Microsoft put a bug in their
               operating platform that they had to — that he had to be on in order to be
               successful. And he happens to be the most successful business in the streaming
               industry to begin with. The fact of the matter is, they’ve put a bug in it, so his
               program would be incompatible. That was testimony before our committee.
               That’s the type of stuff that this judge is finding.
                       You can be a monopoly, and you can fight as hard as you can to increase
               your monopoly power. But you don’t have the right to trample on the little guy.
               You don’t have the right to use your monopoly power, owning the underlying
               operating platform, to insist that all the OEMs, the original equipment
               operators — manufacturers, have to take only your program, to the exclusion
               of everybody else’s, which is also one of the allegations.
                       Now, to be honest with you, that’s why the Endercrass (ph) laws are in
               existence.
                       BACHMAN: Governor Bush, you’re directing a question to Senator
               McCain.
                       BUSH: You’ve been talking a lot about pork in Washington and I
               appreciate that. Here’s my view: If you want to get rid of pork in Washington,
               stop feeding the hog. That’s why I have proposed a $450 billion-plus tax plan
               — tax cut plan, which you called excessive.
                       One of the features in my plan, John, says to the single mom with two
               children making $40,000 a year, you get a 53 percent tax cut. For single
               moms with children who make less than $40,000 a year get — get bigger tax
               cuts. My question to you is, in reviewing of your plan, that single mom with
               children — two children, making $40,000 — get no tax cut. And I’m
               wondering why.
                       MCCAIN: Well, I think it’s something — it’s worthy of consideration,
               but I also believe that if you raise the 15 percent tax bracket to singles or
               couples who make $70,000 a year, that would go a long way in that direction.
               It’s funny you mention about pork, because really what the American people
               need is their money back. 
                       And they’re not going to get it back until we get it out of the hands of the
               special interests — these huge six- and seven-figure donations; the $100,000
               checks; the $200,000 checks that have basically taken the government away
               from the people and put it into the hands of the special interests. And it’s made
               all these young people so cynical and even alienated.
                       I’ll tell you what, in all due respect to my friends here, you and I can stop
               that tonight. We can commit as nominees of the party that we will have nothing
               to do with soft money with these huge $100,000 checks. We can stop it now.
               We commit to that, and we can get the special interest money out of American
               politics. We can give the government back to the people. I hope you’ll make
               that commitment right here tonight in Iowa.
                       BUSH: I’ll be glad to talk about it.
                       (APPLAUSE)
                       BROKAW: Want to talk about it any more right now? Or do you want
               to wait (inaudible).
                       (LAUGHTER)
                       BUSH: Sure.
                       (LAUGHTER)
                       (APPLAUSE)
                       BROKAW: We’re doing all right. We’ve got time, governor. 
                       BUSH: I’d love to talk about it. Here’s my worry with your plan: It’s
               going to hurt the Republican Party, John, and I’m worried for this reason. 
                       MCCAIN: (inaudible)
                       BUSH: Let me finish — let me ...
                       MCCAIN: How did Ronald Reagan get elected in 1980?
                       BUSH: May I finish? Let me finish.
                       MCCAIN: There was no such thing as soft money back then.
                       BUSH: May I finish? 
                       The Democrat Party is really the Democrat Party and the labor unions in
               America. And my worry is, is that you do nothing about what’s called
               paycheck protection. We do nothing about saying to the labor, you can’t take
               a laboring man’s money and spend it the way you see fit. 
                       There’s a lot of laboring people who are Republicans and conservatives.
               And yet under the vision you’ve got or — I guess you’ve got — or people in
               Washington have, it’s OK that they just take their money and spend it the way
               they want to spend it. I don’t think it’s fair. And I think that’s unilateral
               disarmament. 
                       I agree with you, we ought not to have corporate soft money and labor
               soft money. But there better be pay-check protection. Otherwise our
               Republican Party and our conservative values don’t have a shot.
                       MCCAIN: I don’t know how...
                       (APPLAUSE)
                       MCCAIN: I still don’t know how we won in 1980 in the Senate and the
               presidency of the United States.
                       BROKAW: May I? May I...

               (CROSSTALK)
                       BROKAW: May I — May I futilely try to get control here for just a
               moment. We’re going to get to you. You get a question coming up in a few
               moments, then you can promise Al you get a chance to talk.
                       KEYES: One brief remark, though. Because if we’re going to have a
               colloquy, we ought to have all options on the table. These folks actually deal
               with irrelevant things. The government does not have the right to restrict our
               freedom of association, which should include the right to associate our money
               with they causes we believe in.
                       And I think that this whole idea — the whole idea that everybody here
               subscribes here that there should be regulated contributions. It’s very simple.
               No dollar vote without a ballot vote.
                       BROKAW: OK.
                       KEYES: And publicity for all contributions. We don’t need the rest of it.
               We can regulate the system through our ballot if we have the freedom to do
               what we should as individual voters with our money.
                       BROKAW: Senator Hatch, as I was saying — I’m in total control here,
               as you can tell. And it’s your question now to Mr. Forbes. 
                       HATCH: Well, I’m going to colloquize for a minute first.
                       (LAUGHTER)
                       John’s seems — John seems to think that every problem in America is
               going to be solved by the McCain-Feingold bill, an unconstitutional bill that
               basically penalizes Republicans. 
                       HATCH: Have any of you ever wondered why all the Democrats
               support it and hardly any Republicans in the Congress?
                       (LAUGHTER)
                       Just think about it.
                       (APPLAUSE) 
                       Now, let me ask Steve a question. And I’m going to give you a home run
               ball, Steve. Look...
                       FORBES: That usually means hold your wallet.
                       (LAUGHTER)
                       HATCH: Steve, I couldn’t even lift your wallet is all I can say. 
                       (LAUGHTER)
                       (APPLAUSE) 
                       FORBES: Senator, with...
                       HATCH: I’m running a skinny cat campaign... 
                       FORBES: Senator...
                       HATCH: ... OrrinHatch.com. Go there and help me out. 
                       Now, Steve...
                       FORBES: Senator, with a flat tax — with a flat tax you’ll have a better
               wallet, and with my Social Security reform you’ll have a secure retirement and
               not have that pension system of the United States Senate, which rips off the
               taxpayers.
                       (APPLAUSE) 
                       HATCH: Well, Steve, and with my experience of 23 years, I’m the one
               that can get it through, and I’ll do it as president. Let me tell you.
                       (APPLAUSE) 
                       HATCH: Now, let me ask you — let me ask you a question — let me...
                       FORBES: And I’ll be relying on you when I’m in the White House to get
               these things through.
                       (LAUGHTER)
                       (APPLAUSE) 
                       HATCH: Let me ask you a question.
                       FORBES: Sure.
                       HATCH: You know, we’re talking about a lack of values in this country.
               We all know it’s there. We know our kids don’t have the right examples. We
               know that there are a lot of things that are denigrating to our children and our
               people, in Iowa and throughout the country. 
                       My only brother was killed in the Second World War. The most valuable
               thing I own is the flag that draped his coffin when they brought him back. I’m
               the author of the anti-flag desecration constitutional amendment. And what I
               want to do is get two-thirds of the Congress to pass that amendment, and then
               go out to those 50 states and create a debate on values like we’ve never had
               before. Will you join me?
                       FORBES: Senator, absolutely. I support the constitutional amendment
               concerning the desecration of the flag. And I think that’s...
                       (APPLAUSE)
                       HATCH: Thanks. I knew you would.
                       FORBES: That’s why, too, I vigorously support now, not three years
               from now...
                       FORBES: Not as a gift from the federal government, but right now,
               giving parents choice on choosing the schools they think best. So, again get
               morals and values back in the schools through parents, and not have to rely on
               top-down bureaucracies.
                       But then there’s also — you talk about values. In my home state of New
               Jersey, there’s a proposal to read the Declaration of Independence, those
               opening sentences, that we’re endowed by our creator with certain inalienable
               rights, among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 
                       You know there’s controversy about that because it mentions the word
               “creator”...
                       HATCH: Mr. Forbes, the...
                       FORBES: ... and our governor Christie Whitman, says she may not like it
               because it takes too much time out of the day. 
                       HATCH: That’s pathetic...
                       FORBES: She’s — she’s about to endorse Governor Bush. I think we
               need to get back to basics.
                       (LAUGHTER)
                       But to bring — Senator, you bring up — you bring up something very,
               very — you bring up something very valid.
                       When people can question the constitutionality of reading the Declaration
               of Independence in our schools, have the kids read it each day, you know
               there’s something fundamentally wrong. And that’s why I think you sense in
               America the beginnings of a spiritual and moral renewal.
                       HATCH: I told you it would be a softball stage, right. I told you it would
               be a softball, but if...
                       BACHMAN: Senator McCain, the final candidate question to
               Ambassador Keyes. 
                       MCCAIN: Alan, there’s a terrible thing going on in the world right now.
               And it’s genocide and it’s creating hundreds of thousands of refugees. It’s
               destabilizing the region. And a tragic commentary on our time is that because
               it’s not in our living rooms, on television, a lot of people are not aware of it.
               I’m speaking, obviously, of Chechnya.
                       The Russians have threatened mass bombings, have already carried out
               artillery attacks. It’s destabilizing to the region. We know that the oil and gas
               reserves that are in the region are important to the future of our energy supply.
               We know that the Russian military is asserting itself in a way that they’ve not
               since the end of the breakup of the Soviet Union. And there’s a lot of other
               implications associated with what’s going on in Chechnya now.
                       It offends our Judeo-Christian values and principles.
                       MCCAIN: It also can, over time, offend our national interest. Mr. Yeltsin
               the other day mentioned something about we forget that Russia has nuclear
               weapons. No, we don’t forget that. But let’s address this issue. Let’s get the
               attention of the American people on this issue. The president of the United
               States is neglecting it, and I want to know what your prescription is as to what
               you, as president of the United States, would do.
                       KEYES: Yes, it’s interesting because when you started off with that
               description, I thought sure you were going to ask me about Sudan.
                       (APPLAUSE)
                       And of course, the reason I mention that is not — no, I’m not going the
               obvious place. I’m not going to point out that we have allowed the carnage in
               Sudan to take place totally oblivious to a death toll that now rises over two
               million; regularly hundreds of thousands every year. I am not going to suggest
               that we take no interest in that because the people who are dying are black.
               That would, in fact, probably not be true.
                       I will suggest, however, that I find it very strange — and you were one of
               those folks out there shilling for this Kosovo business — I think it rather
               undercut the position of NATO and the Europeans, who are now on their high
               horse because the Soviets are threatening to bomb civilians. We forget that
               several months ago we were in that same position, and the attacks that were
               taking place in Kosovo were not attacks on American soil; were not attacks
               on American targets by terrorists who are terrorizing our population. In fact,
               we had intervened in an internal conflict in another country.
                       So I think we better be careful. If we had been careful then, we’d have
               more moral authority now. I do, because I opposed that surrender of our
               moral position — have them the moral authority to say what I’m about to say.
               And that is that I think that even though the Russians right now are dealing with
               a problem technically internal to their country, I don’t believe we should be
               committing aggression in order to deal with it, but I do... 
                       KEYES: And I think we ought to do so now, sternly and clearly, in a
               way that the Clinton administration doesn’t have the prudence or the courage
               to do.
                       BROKAW: Thank you, Mr. Keyes.
                       (APPLAUSE)
                       That’s the appropriate transition to talk some about foreign policy.
                       Governor Bush, you have said that you supported the idea of rejecting
               the test ban treaty, and you want to build a missile defense system. If you were
               the president — if you were President Jiang Zemin in China, or you were
               President Boris Yeltsin in Russia, wouldn’t you be saying to your military
               personnel, and to your scientists, “They want to start it up again. We’ve got to
               do everything that we can to go on a hair trigger. And we’ve got to expand
               our own nuclear arsenal”?
                       BUSH: No, they’d be hearing a different message. They’d be hearing a
               message that the United States is a peaceful nation — that we intend to keep
               the peace. But we’re not going to sit by and allow rogue nations to hold any of
               our friends hostage. That we’re not going to allow for accidental launches.
               And we’ve got the technology necessary to keep the peace.
                       Mr. Yeltsin will here from President Bush that, “I intend to give you a
               chance to join us in the development of theater-based, and national
               anti-ballistic missile systems. But after a short period of time, if you choose not
               to, we’ll withdraw from the treaty.” Because, we’re a peaceful nation. 
                       But we’re not going to miss an opportunity, Tom, if I’m the president, to
              say to our friends an allies, “We’re going to provide a shield so you won’t be
               blackmailed.” We’re going to say to our friends, the Israelis, “We’ll provide
               you a shield and work with you, so you won’t become blackmailed by
               Iranians or Iraqis.”
                       No, our country must not retreat. We must not worry about what the
               Russians and Chinese think. What we need to do is lead the world to peace.
               And that’s exactly the kind of president I intend to be.
                       BROKAW: Would you give that shield...
                       (APPLAUSE)
                       ... would you give that shield to Taiwan, Senator McCain? And would
               you say to the Russians, simultaneously, “Let’s jump to START I