Horizon, Host: Ted Simons

October 18, 2006


Host: Michael Grant

Navajo Presidential Candidate


  • Tune in for an interview with Lynda Lovejoy, who is hoping to unseat the current president of the Navajo Nation. Topics include gaming rights and the record of the present administration.
Guests:
  • Dr. Michael Crow - President, Arizona State University
  • Lynda Lovejoy - Presidential candidate, Navajo Nation
  • Senator Jon Kyl - republican incumbent and candidate for U.S. Senate
Category: Elections

View Transcript
Michael Grant:
Tonight on Horizon, a new school will open up soon at ASU that's the first of its kind in the world, a school of sustainability. We'll talk to ASU President Michael Crow about that. Plus, the second of two interviews with candidates for president of the Navajo Nation. Tonight, we hear from challenger Lynda Lovejoy. That's next, on Horizon.

Announcer:
Horizon is made possible by the contributions from the friends of 8. Members of your Arizona PBS Station. Thank you.

Michael Grant:
Good evening and welcome to Horizon. I'm Michael Grant. It's the first of its kind in the world. Arizona State University's School of Sustainability. The school will open in January, and will offer undergraduate, graduate and doctoral degrees in sustainability, with different colleges within the university providing course work and research. The goal of the school is to find solutions to some of the most pressing issues of sustainability faced on the planet. Here now to talk about the School of Sustainability is ASU President Dr. Michael Crow. Dr. Crow, it's good to see you again.

Michael Crow:
Happy to be here.

Michael Grant:
My logical first question is what the heck is sustainability?

Michael Crow:
It's one of those words that I think is evolving. What it means for us is today, in fact, the census bureau announced that the nation reached 300 million people. Think of this as the technical interdisciplinary field as we go from 300 million people to 450 million people, that as we reach that the planet will be stressing less while we grow. So sustainability is the focused study how to grow and prosper while reducing the stress on the planet.

Michael Grant:
Microcosmically, it's like how do you move from 6 million or so people in Arizona to what's the latest? 15 million?

Michael Crow:
14 in 2040. How do you get to 14 million people in Arizona? 8 million or 9 million people in the Maricopa County and have elimination of the brown cloud, elimination of ozone, reduction in nighttime heat increases, the index at night, the return of bird species throughout the metropolitan area.

Michael Grant:
Reduced road rage.

Michael Crow:
That's more difficult. That's more complicated.

Michael Grant:
Seriously.

Michael Crow:
Reductions in travel.

Michael Grant:
Reductions in travel, I would think obviously it would have planning aspects to it.

Michael Crow:
Yeah.

Michael Grant: And those kinds of things.

Michael Crow:
Yeah, so sustainability is integration of social science, physical science, natural science, engineering, planning all of the disciplines coming together to plot the course or provide options. What are our best decision alternatives relative to water, energy and environment while providing for growth? In the past when I was an environmental studies student in the '70s, it was a how to block industry, how to slow down corporations and reduce growth. All that means is keep the people at the bottom of the ladder still at the bottom of the ladder. How do you develop it for economic stability and sustainability?

Michael Grant:
How did it come about?

Michael Crow:
It has been evolving for 15 years. When we become aware that the stresses on the planet are drastic and what we're seeing as population increases the stress increase global warming, water issues, pollution issues, lifestyle issues, quality of life issues, and so it's been an awareness that we're not addressing these things in a significant way.

Michael Grant:
First of kind in the world. Rest of world hasn't caught on? We're brighter than they are?

Michael Crow:
Not brighter just more nimble. The chemists will say we don't want to do that or the geologist says they don't want to work on it or the economist says we'll stay with ourselves. Here at ASU, we have intellectual agility. We had a meeting in New Mexico three years ago with leading Harvard scientists from New Mexico, Europe and all other and they helped us to design and outline how to evolve this school. They told us when we were done with the three-day retreat, they said we need to do it and get it right because it's time for this kind of thing to come around.

Michael Grant:
You mentioned the multiple disciplines involved. Will the school itself be in one location?

Michael Crow:
The school is part of our Global Institute of Sustainability. It will draw from disciplines throughout the university. It will have a central location where the faculty--where the core faculty can hangout and beyond that it will draw from the faculty from the rest of the university.

Michael Grant:
You have a wide panoply of disciplines here and issues and those kinds of things, I would think it would be a challenge designing a curriculum sort of figuring out where do you start first? And finish up with?

Michael Crow:
It's very challenging. There's core subjects that everybody will take and specialization that certain folks will take and some will take a social science angle and some will take a natural science angle and some a planning angle and each need a course of principles and theories and tools and so the school will provide those and also provide opportunity for everyone to approach the sustainability questions from all of those various prospectives.

Michael Grant:
What degree do you get? Do you get a bachelors?

Michael Crow:
BS in Sustainability, MS in Sustainability, PhD in Sustainability. You may also get a double major in chemistry. The degree itself will be in sustainability.

Michael Grant:
How many students?

Michael Crow:
It will start out with a few hundred undergraduates and we think it will be major for undergraduates and low hundreds of master's student and several scores of PhD students.

Michael Grant:
There is obviously a strong international element to this. Do you see it being an international magnet for students similarly interested elsewhere?

Michael Crow:
Yeah. We think it's a big deal in Arizona and will attract students and support from around the world. We launched the joint center for sustainability for Urban Academy of Sciences in China. We have multi-locations around the country and world already. This new school will help us to attract students from all over.

Michael Grant:
What about the research angle?

Michael Crow:
The research interestingly will be both local and global. So we already have Maricopa County instrumented. We are already working on the brown cloud problem and ecological problems related to a big city in the sonoran desert and extrapolate what we learn here from other environments and other places and you learn best by sustainability questions by focusing on local complexity and growing out from there and bringing it back together.

Michael Grant:
In fact, I seem to recall there are a couple of those sorts of research efforts underway right now.

Michael Crow:
We run right now the long-term ecological research facility for National Science Foundation focused on urban environments. We run right now Decision Center for Desert City which is funded by the National Science Foundation and biocomplexity issues and a lot of decision making in sustainability and environmental complexity and we are building on that base and have funding and extrapolating from where we are from this new school.

Michael Grant:
Speaking of funding, how does it get funded?

Michael Crow:
We have a planning gift from Julie Ann Rigley of $15 million and investing new faculty lines from the university and securing major, major investments from Washington in particular.

Michael Grant:
The Sustainability School, have you established bench marks for it at this point in time.

Michael Crow:
In terms of size, it's a modestly-sized school. In terms of impact, we want it to be a leading place for solutions for large-scale complex issues of sustainability. For instance, in planning metropolitan Phoenix, we want to see the nighttime heat index reduced. So right now the nighttime temperature has gone up in Phoenix by more than 10 degrees in the last 20 years. It's costly from an energy perspective and costly from a living perspective and an environmental perspective and costly on a water use perspective. We will find it based on the knowledge and problems we involve in our backyard.

Michael Grant:
We don't focus on this very much but it really is an interesting exercise in the interrelationships that exist among all of this and in how many different disciplines they involve.

Michael Crow:
Right. You have to imagine the fingers on my hand are the individual disciplines. Two hands are ranges of types of disciplines let's say the social and natural sciences. All of the problems of sustainability requires coupling of these. Not one major problem of sustainability can be solved by one or two disciplines only the coupling of disciplines. We had to grow up and mature as an intellectual enterprise to realize that and understand that. This school and institute are the means to do that.

Michael Grant:
All right. ASU President Dr. Michael Crow sounds like a fascinating idea. Thank you very much.

Michael Crow:
Glad to be here.

Michael Grant:
Next month Navajo voters will go to the polls to elect a president. The Navajo Nation extends across Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of Utah. The size of the area presents unique challenges and the Navajo Government has been described as the largest and most sophisticated form of Native-American Government. Issues that affect the Navajo Nation range from casino rights to the trade pact with Cuba to education. Tonight we talk to challenger Lynda Lovejoy. Lovejoy has had extensive public service experience, including serving in the New Mexico State Legislature for ten years. She received a Bachelor's in Public Administration at Northern Arizona University. Larry Lemmons spoke with Lynda Lovejoy about the issues.

Larry Lemmons:
Let start with an easy question. Why do you want to be president of the Navajo Nation?

Lynda Lovejoy:
I feel I can make a difference, a difference with integrity, with professionalism, with the energy and commitment to get things done for the people and I believe that I can do more than what is being done now. We are really in a stagnant condition more than ever before and I believe that I can come in and get results, be result oriented and be really looked into major--try to be--try to resolve major matters that are confronting our Navajo Nation government and one that I don't really see happening today. We have problems with lack of economic development. We need better--we need to better our standards in education. We need to pay attention to bettering the quality of life for our people, and we need to truly create jobs for our people. Our unemployment is at its highest level and we need to create jobs. We need to open up more doors that are closed now. We need to bring about and tap into many opportunities that are not being tapped into currently.

Larry Lemmons:
What's your opinion of the recent decision to allow gaming in the Navajo Nation?

Lynda Lovejoy:
Well, that was done--that is a real problematic situation for the Navajo people. The referendum was brought to the people twice, both times it was voted down. And our leaders manipulated the question so that no meant yes and yes meant no and that was a very confusing part. When it came time to voting, those who were opposed to gaming voted no when it meant yes and vice versa. And that was a real manipulation that was done to our people and--but now that it's legal--because of that manipulation, it is legal now and other doors have been opened to establish casinos. And just yesterday, Tuesday, the council voted to establish the gaming commission as--to operate like a private enterprise and I truly don't believe that's going to work. It's not going to benefit the Navajo people. The moneys are not going to come to the Navajo people as it is being articulated. It's not going to happen because this commission is going to become a--an enterprise in itself that's not being to benefit the Navajo people. However it got approved and we have to deal with it the best way we know how to make sure there's going to be accountability and revenue stream to help the Navajo Nation as a government and people.

Larry Lemmons:
What can you tell me about the trade pack with Cuba?

Lynda Lovejoy:
In as much as I support Navajo Nation looking for global networking and global economic opportunities, the trade agreement was--is still unknown by many Navajo people. I don't know when the trade agreement act was approved and whether the council approved it or whether the president himself approved that. It is not a well-known trade agreement that was acted upon. I still believe that there's a great deal of things that can be done at home by NAPI, Navajo Agriculture Products Industry, helping Navajos in times of emergencies, drought, extreme climate weather season and these are things that are still not--plans are still not in place to do things like this by NAPI. However they reached out to Cuba for trade agreement to sell. And as I said, in as much as I support going global, I'm hoping that we can--we can go back in and discuss some of these issues and truly make the trade agreement known to the people and what its intent and purpose is.

Larry Lemmons:
Are you the first woman to run for president of the Navajo Nation?

Lynda Lovejoy:
I'm not the first.

Larry Lemmons:
You're not the first?

Lynda Lovejoy:
I'm not the first woman to run. I'm the first to win the primary election.

Larry Lemmons:
How does it feel to be in that position?

Lynda Lovejoy:
It certainly is overwhelming and everyone was surprised about my win except myself of course because I know how to count. But truly as I am proud of it and I hope to be a role model to the younger women that are coming up the ladder and--but I still--I still believe that I'm running based on my qualifications and not based on my gender.

Larry Lemmons:
You are obviously not happy with the present administration. Is that the reason why you chose to run or was there some other reason?

Lynda Lovejoy:
Absolutely. If I was--first of all, I don't ever run against incumbents. I have never done that and respectfully I truly don't think it's a good idea to run against someone an incumbent rather if he or she is doing a good job. In this case, our current president is not doing a good job. As I said, he's not a decision maker. He relies too much on other people's ideas and decisions and he's been--I believe that he's listening to people who are misguiding him. There's a lot of missteps, miscommunication, a misguide and that's detrimental to our Navajo people and that's what has caused us to become a regressive nation rather than progressing and moving forward and tapping into economic and better educational opportunities for our people.

Larry Lemmons:
You had mentioned economic development, education, quality of life. If you are elected, what would you do towards those problems in the first 100 days?

Lynda Lovejoy:
First of all, we hope to submit some legislation that will support--that will remove barriers to support our small businesses, Navajo-owned businesses. We hope to submit legislation that needs dire modification to remove barriers and make streamline processes. We hope to--we hope to submit legislation that will make veterans a separate entity or a separate division that has been problematic for many, many years. And we hope to really examine our tribal enterprise and make their mission complement the Navajo Nation's goals. We want to reexamine many programs that are not being managed well and effectively and efficiently. Those are things we want to move fast on and get results, set some goals and achieve results. We want to have a little bit more hands-on to make sure that our workers are treated fairly. We want to establish wages that are fair. We would like to--and again, we want to move quickly on how we can look at some energy development; that is, looking at alternative forms such as renewables. Those are things we want to do and many, many more. We just know it's going to take time but the major or foremost interest as well is looking at our governments. We have a dysfunctional government. And we have a government that is not responsive to the needs of the people. We have a government that has its doors closed to the people. It is not involving our people. It is not allowing our grass roots people to have a voice in our government. And we want to look at immediate ways to put out front that we want a democratic process in our government. We want the people to have the right to voice their ideas and their opinions and in our government. And then secondly, we want to really truly establish a healthy working relationship with our own tribal leaders, our council delegates, and our chapter officials. And we want to immediately focus on getting the business done for the people which is not--which is not there now.

Larry Lemmons:
Thank you, Lynda Lovejoy for visiting us today.

Lynda Lovejoy:
Thank you.

Michael Grant:
If you're confused about the upcoming election. Horizon's "Vote 2006" web site can help. You can get to the web site at www.azpbs.org. Here are more details.

Mike Sauceda:
To get to the Arizona vote 2006 website, go to the 8 website at azpbs.org. Once you're there, click on vote 2006. That will take you to our Horizon Vote 2006 homepage which is loaded with features to help you prepare to cast your ballot. One of the most prominent features is top videos. With this feature you can view past Horizon election shows. The five tabs on the upper part of the screen allow you to access all the information you need on the propositions, state-wide races, the U.S. senate race, congressional races and clean elections debates. For example, if you click on the proposition tab, you'll get a list of propositions that will appear on the November ballot. Click on one of the propositions such as prop 100, and you'll get links to the text of the proposed amendment, analyses by the legislative council, arguments for and against and town halls on the measure. On the Arizona vote 2006 website you can access on line videos, RSS feeds, podcasts and the Cronkite 8 Poll. A couple of other features to checkout is my ballot. A printable form to remind you of your choices as you vote and you can check out when to watch Horizon election coverage.

Michael Grant:
Thank you very much for joining us this evening. And of course on our Friday edition we will have the usual reporter round table where we will cover the week's news and political developments. Thanks again for joining us. I'm Michael Grant. Have a great one. Good night.



We now present the U.S. Senate debate, a Horizon special presentation.

Announcer:
Welcome to KUAT's Election 2006 Senate Candidates Forum with candidates Jon Kyl, Richard Mack, and Jim Pederson. And now from the studios of KUAT television, it's your moderator, Bill Buckmaster.

Bill Buckmaster:
Good evening everybody. Welcome to our election 2006 political forum series presented by the KUAT Communications Group and Cox Communications. Joining me to question the three U.S. Senate candidates is Ann Brown, editorial page editor of the "Arizona Daily Star". Now let's meet the candidates. Republican Jon Kyl is seeking a third six-year term to the U.S. Senate. Prior to his Senate service, Mr. Kyl served four terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. Democrat Jim Pederson is a Phoenix businessman who has developed more than two dozen shopping centers around Arizona. He's the former state chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party. And libertarian Richard Mack is the former sheriff of Graham County. In the 1990's, Sheriff Mack successfully challenged the Brady Bill, arguing it was unconstitutional to require local police to conduct background checks on potential gun buyers. Now a word about our ground rules for tonight's forum. Each candidate will have a two-minute opening statement. In order to cover as much ground as possible, we are asking the candidates to limit their responses to no more than a minute and a half. Now, there will be a second or a 45-second rebuttal opportunity for the candidate to whom the question was originally asked. We may have to alter these time limits somewhat near the end of our forum so each candidate will have two minutes for their closing remarks. So we begin now with each candidate's opening statement. Senator Kyl, you're up first.

Jon Kyl:
Thank you. It's been an honor and pleasure for me to represent you in the United States Senate. Carol and I have so many friends, and we thank you for your support. This race presents a clear choice between Jim Pederson and myself. You know my record. You know what I stand for. For example, the recent historic Arizona water settlement which brought over 8,000 acre feet of new CAP water to Tucson. We know from my opponent's criticism of me what he stands for. He has chosen to criticize 200 of my votes. And if he were in the Senate voting the other way, we know that he would vote with John Kerry and John Kennedy 96\% of the time, with John McCain only 22\% of the time. Mr. Pederson talks about a new direction, but I suggest that's the wrong direction for Arizona. Look at just three issues: judges, immigration, and terrorism. He's running an ad right now that criticizes me for voting to confirm Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Alito to the United States Supreme Court, which shows just how far out of the mainstream he is. On immigration, perhaps today he can explain his flip-flop on the border fence. He'd explain why he believes that illegal immigrants should get U.S. citizenship and why he opposed voter ID at the polls. On the important issue of terrorism, perhaps today he can explain why-- how he can not only leave, but how he would recommend winning these wars against terrorists. I think the voters of Arizona deserve knowledgeable and experienced leadership. The writer for the "Arizona Daily Star" said with respect to Mr. Pederson's position on the Iraq war that, that with Mr. Pederson's vision, victory is nowhere in sight. John McCain and I have worked together to provide experienced leadership for Arizona you can trust. I want to thank KUAT for the opportunity to discuss these and many other issues today. Thank you.

Bill Buckmaster:
All right. Thank you, Senator. Sheriff Mack?

Richard Mack:
Well, thanks. My name is Richard Mack, and I approve this debate. [Laughter] As a matter of fact, I'm really grateful to be here. I don't always get invited. And I think it's kind of astonishing that I don't get invited to all of them and even more astonishing that Senator Kyl has refused to debate if I attend the debates. And I think that the democratic process should include everybody that's on the ballot. There's only three of us, and I believe I bring a lot to the table here. I am a former police officer, a former sheriff, and a former teacher. And while I was serving as sheriff in Graham County, I did sue the Clinton administration to stop the federal intervention that was part of the Brady Bill. And it was an extreme intrusion by the federal government and the Clinton administration. So, yes, I did sue the bill Clinton administration. And you might say that I was the only person in history that ever sued Bill Clinton on a nonsexual matter. I did learn a lot, though, through this political process, and I studied what made America great, and I found out that the founding fathers established this country based on self-rule, limited government, and basically this principle: that they would teach and stand for correct principles and allow the people to govern themselves. This does not exist today. It really doesn't matter who's in charge: Republicans or Democrats. Government gets bigger, more onerous, and the deficit gets gigantic, just like it is today. Since Ronald Reagan left office and during the 20 years that Senator Kyl has been in Washington, D.C., the federal budget has gone up 550\%. This cannot continue. It cannot be sustained. I offer myself as an alternative. That's Richard Mack for U.S. Senate. Thanks.

Bill Buckmaster:
Thank you, sheriff. And now Mr. Pederson.

Jim Pederson:
Thank you, Bill. Thank you, Ann. And thanks to KUAT for providing us this opportunity. It's always good to come on the University of Arizona campus. I spent quite a few years here getting two degrees, and this campaign has really provided me with a chance to meet so many people, ex-schoolmates that I went to U of A with, Casa Grande high school, people that I did business deals with a long, long time ago. And getting reacquainted and making new friends have certainly been a privilege for me over the past year. Our approach to the issues is a product of our life experience. I spent the last 30 years in business, so I guess that influences how I look at things. Sometimes, when you take over an existing business or project, things are so messed up that you really have to come in and make a complete change, change of personnel, and start over. Folks, I think that's where we are today. The mess in Iraq, our broken borders we can't seem to fix, no-bid contracts, unfair tax policies that disproportionately affect the middle class, corruption and immoral behavior at the highest levels. And the most important thing: an administration that doesn't seem to know how to keep us safe. It's time to start over. It's time to clean house. It's time to replace the personnel that should be responsible for finding solutions. Now, I've proven in my career that I'm pretty good at fixing things. Washington's broken. It's time to fix it. Remember, you can't change Washington until you change the people you send there. Thank you.

Bill Buckmaster:
Thank you, Mr. Pederson. Ann Brown is going to begin the questioning for us tonight.

Ann Brown:
And Sheriff Mack, you're going to be the first to answer this question. It looks as though there will be a 700-mile fence along the border. Now what would you like to do to address the illegal immigration problem? And please be specific in both terms of plans and procedures.

Richard Mack:
This is right up my alley. First of all, my degree is in Latin American studies. I speak fluent Spanish and have been in southern Arizona about 35 years. And, first of all, I would really like to see some diplomacy reaching out to the new president of Mexico. Clinton and Bush really failed in this regard to play patty cake with President Fox, and they should have taken a much tougher stand and had him get more involved in helping us instead of promoting illegal immigration. I really have to question a 700-mile fence. That border is 2000 miles long. I support strict enforcement at the border. We have to. We cannot pretend to have a war on terrorism and have such a poor, unsecure border, especially on the Mexico border. We know for a fact that terrorists have gotten through, and this has been -- the blame falls directly on the democrats and republicans that have been in office who have failed to enforce our immigration laws. We don't need another immigration law. We need to enforce the laws that are there. I don't blame the poor people from Mexico for wanting to come here, but we cannot take all the poor from Mexico and provide for them here in the United States. We have got to be tougher and stretch that fence.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Mr. Pederson, be specific with plans and procedures.

Jim Pederson:
Let's be specific with plans and procedures. The other night, Ann, on our Phoenix debate, I strongly recommended to Senator Kyl that he go arm and arm to the House of Representatives and try to sell his colleagues in the house on the plan to pass that Senate. That was a pretty good bill, contained strong border enforcement, additional border patrol agents backed up by the resources and technology they desperately need. It called for a practical way to deal with the undocumented people that are already here. It called for a great guest worker program that works. It's like the program that I experienced when I was growing up in Casa Grande. People came across that border, they worked, and they went back. But there's a partisan divide in Washington today. That's why we're not seeing true immigration reform. A fence? Sure, it will help. But if we think just a fence is going to solve our immigration problem, we've got another think coming. Jon Kyl voted against that bill, Ann. He voted against-- well, the congressional office estimated there would be $8 billion provided to enforce the provisions of that agreement. He voted against that. You know, the taxpayers in this state should be outraged. Here we are, we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars of Arizona's taxpayers' money to enforce what should be a federal issue. Our hospitals, our schools, our jails, our law enforcement -- we've got to bring this within the framework of the law. My opponent really doesn't have a good plan. It's bound up in political rhetoric. He's been back there for 20 years. Nothing's been done. Where are the results?

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Senator Kyl, and be specific.

Jon Kyl:
I will be specific. I have a bill which was introduced that has four key elements to it. It's comprehensive immigration reform. It starts with securing the border, including building fencing, more roads, more border patrol, more detention spaces, sensors, everything we need to bring the border under control, more law enforcement at the interior of the country, including at the workplace. We've got to have an electronic verification of employment to ensure that nobody that's not authorized to work is employed in the country. We need, third, to do something about the people who are here illegally today, at least 12 million illegal immigrants. And finally, we need a temporary worker program in this country. If you go to Yuma, for example, today, you'll find that we're going to have difficulty bringing in the lettuce crop unless there's some kind of ability for people to work there, and that means, in my view, work here temporarily. As Mr. Pederson just said, the way the law used to be, you got a visa to be here temporarily. When the work was done, you went home and then came back when the work was here again. Under the bill he supports, the bill I voted against, once those temporary workers are here, they can immediately petition to be here permanently and then become U.S. citizens. The question I asked in my opening statement was why should a temporary worker be automatically put on a path to citizenship when the jobs aren't here anymore? Building houses, for example, we need workers right now. But sometime in the future, those jobs are not going to be here. And does it make sense for us to convert those temporary workers into permanent workers and U.S. citizens or have them return home, to come back when there's work available for them again?

Ann Brown:
Thank you. And Sheriff Mack, you have a 45-second rebuttal?

Richard Mack:
Well, neither Mr. Kyl or Mr. Pederson addressed one key issue in this entire immigration debate, and that is the reasons that the Mexican poverty-stricken people come here in the first place. They know darn well that they're going to get a bunch of freebies from our socialistic government here. And we have got to stop that. We cannot pay people who come here illegally with taxpayer dollars and give them all these benefits for free. That must stop, and we must publicize that on the other side of the border, south of the Rio Grande.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. Thank you. Our next question is to Mr. Pederson. Is America safer today than we were before September 11, 2001?

Jim Pederson:
No, we're not, Bill. There was a national intelligence estimate that came out a couple of weeks ago. This is a compilation of estimates by all of the intelligence agencies of the federal government. It mainly concluded that because of our activities in Iraq that America is not safer, that we have not made progress in the war on terror, that we're not going after the terrorists where they are. If we're going to go after terrorism, let's do it in a practical, honest, and common sense way. Let's go after the terrorists where they are. Let's reassert our leadership position in the world, a position that we've lost. Let's rebuild our military, currently 100,000 troops short. Let's not come back to cut back on homeland security funding. All of these kinds of things, if they were combined together, would provide for the safety and security of the United States. But on each one of these issues, our government, rubber stamped by Senator Kyl, has a failing grade.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. Thank you. Senator?

Jon Kyl:
I would argue that we are safer today. Remember that the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. couldn't even talk to each other before 9/11. After 9/11, we understood that there were changes that had to be made primarily in our intelligence-gathering operations as well as laws that prohibited us from doing certain things. The PATRIOT Act resulted from that. The Tools to Fight Terrorism Act, I helped to write both of those bills. Another bill I wrote, called the Moussaoui Fix, to solved the problem that existed when we couldn't get into Zacarias Moussaoui's computer before 9/11, even though we suspected that he had something to do with terrorists. So I think that we've created laws to make things better. And we've gone after terrorists. We have broken up a wide variety of potential attacks, including recently in Great Britain, and probably over 100 attacks in other places of the world. Remember, before 9/11, we had been attacked four times: the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole, our troops in Cobart Towers, the American Embassies in the African countries. So it's clear that the terrorists are going to fight us and they're going to try to find the creases where we are weakest. We've got to continue to do everything we can to protect our homeland but appreciate the fact that, in this war, our best ability to win is to go after them where they are, to be on the offense. And that means having a very robust intelligence capability. And we've created, as I said, the mechanism to be able to do that in the future. So I would argue that we indeed in the homeland here are safer than we were five years ago.

Bill Buckmaster:
And what do you think, Sheriff Mack?

Richard Mack:
Absolutely not. We are not safer, and we are not more secure, and our position in the world has been lessened. And furthermore we're less free. And part of that is due entirely to the unconstitutional PATRIOT Act that Senator Kyl helped author. It doesn't take a first grade student to know and understand that the onerous provisions in the PATRIOT Act are unconstitutional. And Senator Kyl calls them tough laws. I call them unconstitutional. And to surrender some of our freedoms that Benjamin Franklin warned us not to do, to surrender freedom for security, is wrong. And just about everything that the founding fathers warned us not to do, we're doing it today, all in the name of fighting terrorism or providing for this compassionate conservativism made up by George Bush. The PATRIOT Act is one of the reasons why I say what's worse? The attacks on our country or the attacks on our liberty? And I thought we were supposed to be defending liberty. And the people we put into office should be doing that, not writing unconstitutional laws.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. And the rebuttal now, Mr. Pederson.

Jim Pederson:
Senator Kyl, where are the results? You certainly have reassuring tones, but where is the evidence? Where is the evidence that the United States is safer? Where is the evidence of our progress in Iraq? Where is the evidence of our progress in fighting terror worldwide? Where is the evidence that we're uniting the world community to proceed on the war on terror? Where is this evidence? Where are the results? We don't need tough talk. We don't need reassuring terms. We need somebody to roll up their sleeves and get to work.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Senator Kyl, this question will start with you. I'd like you to discuss the situation in Iraq and whether the U.S. should issue a formal timetable for withdrawal of forces.

Jon Kyl:
No, we shouldn't. And that's the consensus of our military leaders there. To do that would simply tell our enemy exactly what they have to do in order to prevail. To wait until we leave, chaos would result. That country would implode. The countries around it, I think, would begin to move away from the position that they've had in the past, which is to support countries like: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, other countries. After 9/11, especially after we went into Afghanistan -- and they understood we were serious, we were going to win the war against these terrorists -- they began to work with us. As a matter of fact the Pakistanis have helped catch over half of the terrorists that have been apprehended worldwide. I believe they would begin to hedge their bets, because all of them live in a very dangerous neighborhood there, and they all have terrorist potential within their own countries. As a result, were we to leave Iraq, not only would that country implode and an awful lot of people I think die, particularly those who supported the government and who were on our side, but you'd find that the support that we're getting to fight the terrorists around that area would also begin to fade as those countries began to hedge their bets with others, and that result would be that the United States would be less able to win the war. The problem in Iraq is that it is a battle in the overall war worldwide, and you don't win the worldwide war by pulling out of the central battle. And that's what Osama Bin Laden calls it. In fact, Bin Laden calls Baghdad the capitol of his new caliphate. That's a central battle and we can't back out of.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Sheriff Mack.

Richard Mack:
Well, I really am sorry that we ever went to Iraq. I'm the only candidate in this that never supported the war. I'm against war. I'm against killing. We should not have done this. I believe in a strong national defense. I'm all for that. But that wasn't what this war was about. First we got -- we must remember that we went there based on faulty intelligence. Even the White House admits that. It was faulty intelligence. There's been accusations a lot stronger than that, but I'll just leave it at that. And the pretense seems to be that, as long as we're in Iraq, we're keeping all the terrorists there, and we're keeping them occupied because that's where they are. That is bull. If we had been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as we are now -- and right now we have caused a much worse problem than existed at the time we went there. But if we were fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq at the time 9/11 occurred, 9/11 would have still happened. These people don't stop because we're right there in Iraq and they wouldn't have stopped. And this happened because of faulty intelligence and faulty preparation and because we have not done the right things with middle eastern foreign policy. I have two words to say about failed policy in the Middle East. Iraq.

Ann Brown:
Mr. Pederson.

Jim Pederson:
Well Richard, you're 100\% right. We got into Iraq for the wrong reasons, but we're there. I'm not for a unilateral pullout by any means. But I am in favor of a more intelligent way of prosecuting this war. Above all, I'm in favor of getting our young men and women off the streets of Baghdad. That's where they're being killed. They're being killed by the car bombs, the roadside bombs, the suicide bombs. Get them into forward-operating bases. Could be in Iraq. Fully respond to the threat of safety and security of the United States. Mr. Kyl, you mentioned Afghanistan. I don't see how in the world you can hold that example up as any kind of a success. The Taliban is growing. Al-Qaeda is growing. Terrorist networks, the poppy fields that produce heroin that finance much of the war on terror is growing. How in the world can that be an example of a successful United States policy? It's not. And that's a problem. You can't go after the solution to the problem unless you admit the problem. This administration, backed up by Senator Kyl, says there's no problem. That's the biggest problem that I have. They think things are okay the way they are. They want to continue with the status quo. They're looking through rose-colored glasses. They won't admit that a problem exists.

Ann Brown:
Okay. Senator Kyl, rebuttal?

Jon Kyl:
Well, obviously there are huge problems. The president has made it crystal clear that this is difficult. It's long. It's not going to be easy. But I wonder, when Mr. Pederson says that Afghanistan is not an example of success, did he think it was better under the Taliban when little girls couldn't go to school and the religious police were roaming the streets rounding up people for doing the wrong thing, taking people to soccer stadiums and beheading them? That's what this world would look like if these evil doers got their way. They intend to bend us to their will or kill us or die trying, and you've got to go after them where they are. And Afghanistan is a significant example of success, though of course it's not done. The bottom line here is that the United States has got to go after the terrorists where they are. They're in Afghanistan. They're in Iraq. They're in a lot of other places in the world. And as Ronald Reagan said in the Cold War, the strategy is we win; they lose.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay and the next question is for Sheriff Mack. We're on the university of Arizona campus, so it's appropriate we talk a little education here tonight. And I want to talk about the federal "No Child Left Behind" Law that promised educational reform in this country. Has it, Sheriff Mack, lived up to its promise?

Richard Mack:
[Laughter] Another typical example of why you don't want Washington, D.C. politicians running education. A huge failure, huge cost, and one of the reasons why I agree with Ronald Reagan that we should abolish the department of education. He said it first. I don't take credit for it. But I will be the leader in helping Ronald Reagan's promise come to fruition. We should not have the department of education. We should not have our politicians from Washington, D.C. trying to micromanage education out here in Tucson or southern Arizona. We elect school boards for that. We have our parents and teachers association. We can handle it. We promise Washington, D.C. we can handle our own education out here. And we left a lot more children behind. I have lots of friends in education. I've been in education. And there's not one of them that likes it. One here and there administrator says, oh, yeah, but we love this money coming in. Well, why don't you just keep your own money. Quit sending it to Washington, D.C. where it gets wasted, and then we don't have to worry about it. Keep our money here, and keep our education control right here locally. I support Arizona. I know Arizona teachers and parents and school boards can do a better job than Washington, D.C. and "No Child Left Behind" proves it.

Bill Buckmaster:
"No Child Left Behind", Mr. Pederson.

Jim Pederson:
Well, I agree with Richard that it's certainly not fulfilling its promise. What "No Child Left Behind" is -- are a bunch of requirements, a bunch of standards. They're not backed up by research. In my business, when you outline a problem or outline a project, you put the people in charge. You make sure they have the resources available, you make sure they have the leadership, the backup. Then you stand back and watch. And if the project doesn't proceed, then you have another sit-down. Make sure the resources are there, and then make a determination as to what's wrong. The problem with "No Child Left Behind" is that there are no resources, so you've got the cart before the horse. You've got all the requirements, all the standards without the resources to accomplish them. You know, I like to keep it simple. We all know the bad, horrible statistics that we have concerning education in Arizona today. Ranked near the bottom in practically every category. What does that say about our generation? Why don't we do three things: raise teachers' salaries, limit class size, fully fund special education. If we just did those three things, you would see a remarkable improvement in the educational status of our young people.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. Senator Kyl, some of your thoughts on "No Child Left Behind".

Jon Kyl:
Thanks. Well there was a big article in the paper up in Phoenix today about the fact that Arizona ranked 50th out of 50 states in spending. That's an indictment obviously of the state government for not putting more money into the kinds of things that Mr. Pederson was just now talking about. But at the federal government level, I think we've been robust in trying to support education, including in Arizona. Arizona, from the standpoint of federal funding for primary and secondary education, ranks seventh out of the 50 states. We've done a good job for Arizona. As a matter of fact, this year it's $5.1 billion. That's more than half of the budget of the state of Arizona. That's a robust amount of federal education spending to the state. "No Child Left Behind" spending has increased 45\% since 2001. In fact, special education that Jim mentioned has gone up 67\% at the federal level. Now, I don't know the comparable numbers at the state level, and it could be that not enough is being done and more should be done at the state level, but the concept for "No Child Left Behind" was the federal government is not going to continue to just pour money into states without results. And we didn't want to just test to an average. If you met that, then you got the money. The concept was they're after the kids below the average. No child should be left behind. And so federal money would be available for tutoring of those kids, sending them to other schools, more money to their own schools to do a better job. The bottom line: so that every child could perform to their very best and that no child in fact would be left behind. And it is beginning to work.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. And, Sheriff, we'll come back to you. You've got the final few seconds on this subject.

Richard Mack:
Well, this doesn't need very long to wrap up, I don't believe, because it's so obvious this program has not worked. It's been a huge failure. And here Senator Kyl talks about a 45\% increase in money, but results are worse. Just look at Arizona being 50th now. And I think that mark is a typical example of just absolutely get the federal government out of the way. And the feds should not -- the federal government should not be in charge of controlling education dollars, period.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Mr. Pederson, we'll start with you with this next question. A senator is a person who's going to work at a national level, but you're elected by the voters of Arizona. So I'd like to talk with you-- you to talk a little bit about specific programs that you think would help Tucson's economy as well as the rest of the United States.

Jim Pederson:
And I will answer that question. But if you permit just a couple of seconds, I can't permit Senator Kyl's statements to go unchallenged about education. You talk to any educator in this state, he has voted against countless measures that would have provided funds for education in this state. He was responsible for keeping, over the last five years, about $200 million worth of "No Child Left Behind" funds coming into Arizona. Back to your question. Economic stability in Pima County, producing jobs, has been an issue for many, many years. I was doing an administrative internship with the city of Tucson back in the late 60's. It was an issue then. We need to develop jobs in Tucson, in Pima County. I know my own business, I haven't been able to get anything going down here mainly because the average household income is quite a bit lower than the rest of the state, and the rest of the state is really not in that great of shakes either. But to illustrate your point concerning your question, I was talking to the economic development director that's in charge of your overall agency for economic development in Pima County. His agency is responsible for getting a Mexican company to come to Tucson. Provided about 200 jobs, as I recall. He told me that he couldn't even get a letter out of the congressional delegation to help him out. I said, you know, if I were a senator, I'd be on that plane to Mexico City with you to help you out. That is a primary responsibility of any elected official.

Ann Brown: Thank you. Senator Kyl?

Jon Kyl:
Well, the key to economic growth is keeping taxes and regulations as low as possible, and we've seen, since the 2001 and 2003 tax rate cuts, that our business has boomed. Five straight years of economic growth. And this helps all communities. It helps communities like Tucson, it helps other communities in Arizona. As John F. Kennedy said, this rising tide lifts all votes. The difference between Mr. Pederson and me is that he would allow those tax rates to expire, going back up to where they used to be. Now, that would result for the average family, a 58\% increase in taxes. Over $2000 a year for the average family. Think about small businesses. The only way you tax the rich is by raising the top marginal rate from 35\%. Small businesses, about 420,000 of them in Arizona, many in Tucson, pay at that top marginal rate. You hurt them if you do that. Capital gains and dividends rates have been lowered. That's the best way to help business is to keep those rates low. Mr. Pederson would let them go back up to where they were. That doesn't just hurt the businesses. It hurts investors. You know, 80\% of seniors report dividends or capital gains, and many of these are not wealthy people. In fact, almost 40\% of the people with incomes less than $50,000 report capital gains and dividends. So the problem with the idea of raising taxes is it hurts everybody. And the best way - there are many other things we could talk about here - but the best way to keep economic growth moving is to keep regulation and taxes as low as possible.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Sheriff?

Richard Mack:
Well finally I agree with Senator Kyl. We do need to keep regulation and taxes low. Regulation means government out of your life. We need to get government out of this. But it's amazing. And I'm really shocked that my opponents haven't talked about this issue before. If you really want to help Arizona -- and the senator does represent Arizona in Washington, D.C. He is the representative for this state to help this state in every way that he possibly can within the restraints of the constitution. Isn't it amazing, though, that western states are all owned and controlled by the federal government? 85\% of the land of Arizona is federally owned or controlled. 85\%. We're not even Arizona. Why do we call ourselves Arizona? We're an enclave of the federal government. They own our land. We can't even control our own geography and our own land, we're just an enclave of the federal government. I don't want that. That's not acceptable. New Hampshire is 2\% owned by the federal government. 2\%. And we're 85. Something's wrong with that picture. Land is where you have jobs. Land is where you have tax base. Land is where you have your economy. I want our land back, and I will get it back to Arizona.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Rebuttal, Mr. Pederson?

Jim Pederson:
Mr. Kyl has a very myopic view of the economy and what makes business thrive. I'm the business guy. He's a supply-sider. They also call that voodoo economics, trickle down. There's more that business needs than just tax cuts. Senator Kyl, I'm all for tax cuts. I'm just not for debt. But what do I need as a businessman? I need stable neighborhoods, I need good schools, I need infrastructure investment by state, local, and federal government. Above all, I need rising incomes. That's not being done in Arizona right now. Small business needs a reform in the health care system. Small business needs good transportation systems. You know, that's what a U.S. senator should be doing for the state.

Bill Buckmaster:
Thank you so much. Now we'll move on to another question. Of course it's economic-related. Even though, Senator Kyl, the oil prices are down from their historic levels earlier this year, America is still very dependent on foreign oil. Is it time to really increase the drilling in North America?

Jon Kyl:
Yes, it is. As a matter of fact, we have control over our own destiny here. It used to be that we imported only about 35\% of our oil from places like the gulf, now about 60\% to 65\% is imported. And yet we could, by simply moving into areas like the Gulf of Mexico in the deep waters -- I'm talking 10,000 feet down. We could be producing huge new quantities of oil and gas. The Senate and House have each passed a bill to do that. They have to be reconciled in a conference committee, but I strongly support that. There was an area set aside in Alaska specifically for this purpose, which we could also explore for oil and gas and we know it's there. And that would help us reduce this dependence on oil from other sources. There are a lot of other things we could do as well. To the extent that ethanol is now being used as an additive, we could make it a lot cheaper by eliminating the 54 cent tariff that the United States imposes on Brazilian ethanol. Senator Feinstein and I have a bill that would do that. We can reduce the number of these boutique fuel blends. Most of our gas comes from California. A lot of this gas is refined over there. If we could get those blends down to about six, it would substantially reduce the cost. As a matter of fact, in the energy bill, I was able to win an agreement for Arizona and California and Nevada would also get it, that in the hot summer months that we don't have to burn as much ethanol because it costs more, number 1, but our hot climate takes these oxygenates and creates ozones so it's not even good for the environment. So there are a lot of ways we could reduce the cost, but a lot starts right here in our own backyard.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. What do you think, sheriff?

Richard Mack:
Yes. Absolutely we should expand our oil drilling and offer up all sorts of different places: Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, all sorts of places for drilling. But we also need to look at other sources of energy in our country. Solar energy works. There's other places and other things we can do to promote other sources of energy besides just oil, which is a danger to the environment in some areas. But we've got to understand that the environmentalists have had a strangle hold on our government and on our exploration that has cost jobs, and the worst thing that we've allowed to take place is our dependency on the middle east for our oil. And it's one of the reasons that we're stuck in an unprofitable war right now. And we should not allow this to occur. And getting off of that dependency and that addiction will make us a safer country.

Bill Buckmaster:
And, Mr. Pederson, on the energy question?

Jim Pederson:
Senator Kyl, you can't drill your way out of our dependence on foreign oil or our dependence on fossil fuels. You have countless votes supporting the oil and gas industry, tax subsidies, tax credits. You have very few votes, if any, promoting alternative fuels. Again -- and to keep it simple, my analysis -- if you have higher mileage for automobiles -- get them out to 40, 42 miles a gallon like they have in Europe today. That would reduce our dependency on foreign oil by a good 60\%. More efficient buildings, something I know a little bit about, another 20\%. Alternative fuels, another 20\%. I think we could accomplish all of that within 10 to 12 years. You've voted against every one of these measures. You said something the other night at our Phoenix debate that was unbelievable to me. You said that you're really not in favor of higher-mileage cars because that would lessen the weight of these cars, thereby causing more highway deaths. I have never heard that, never heard a rationale for that. I think it indicates that you really haven't put a lot of thought into this because you've been supporting the oil industry in this state, in this country, the richest industry in the entire history of our country.

Bill Buckmaster:
All right. And you get the rebuttal, Senator.

Jon Kyl: Well, supporting the oil industry, I voted against the big energy bill that Jim Pederson would have voted for, and it's the bill that had $65 billion in subsidies for oil companies and $14.5 billion in tax subsidies for oil companies. He would have voted for it. Who would have subsidized the oil companies? On the matter of cafe standards, the sources are not mine. They are officials - for example, national academy of sciences and others have demonstrated that you get better fuel mileage by making the cars a lot lighter. All I said was there's a tradeoff. Understand that if you go to 40 miles a gallon, you're probably looking at 5000 highway fatalities a year as a result of those lighter-weight vehicles. That's a tradeoff that Americans are going to have to deal with. Of course we can't just drill our way, but there are a lot of things that we can do, starting with at least increasing production that we have available to us in the United States.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Sheriff Mack, this question is for you. Condoleezza Rice is in Tokyo today, I believe, drumming up support for the U.N. resolution for sanctions against North Korea. I wondered if you could talk a little bit about how you feel about the new U.N. resolution and also if the United States should engage in talks directly with North Korea.

Richard Mack:
I am in favor of direct talks with North Korea, absolutely. And I don't know why President Bush continues to take positions of antagonism towards some of our enemies. In law enforcement, I was a hostage negotiator. We do negotiate with criminals. We do negotiate with people who cause us problems. Let's negotiate if we can't through diplomacy, get rid of a lot of these dangers and cause peace, for heaven's sakes, I'm much more for that than I am invading countries as we seem to be doing ever since World War II, we've invaded about 18 to 20 different countries. I thought we were the country that would provide the world peace, and we need to set the example with that. And, yes, absolutely diplomacy, negotiation, sit down and talk. I don't care. Get on the phone if you have to, President Bush, but let's take care of this threat. Instead, during this whole North Korea nuclear test and proliferation of nuclear weapons, we have Congress -- what are they doing? Ah. Getting rid of internet gambling. Boy, that really helped. Now, let's get serious about this problem. We must engage China, Japan, and South Korea leadership and have them part of this diplomatic process.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Mr. Pederson?

Jim Pederson:
That's pretty good, Richard. I don't think I need to say any more, but I will. And I recall President Bush's State of the Union address in 2002 where he pledged to the American people that no terrorist nation would ever develop the capability of nuclear weaponry. Well, here we are today. We had a test in North Korea just a few days ago. Here we are today with Iran. It's not a question of "if" concerning nuclear capability. It's a question of "when". And I agree with Richard. Through our cowboy diplomacy, our lone ranger approach, we have alienated the rest of the world. The only reason that North Korea is where it is today is that they have a benefactor: China. They have a back door. We're going to have to take that situation and talk to not only North Korea but talk to China, talk to Russia, talk with all the leading powers of the world. Now, the recent U.N. resolution was encouraging, but we need to push that. We need to push that. This administration has had almost a contempt for the rest of the world, for the rest of the countries of the world, a lack of respect. You can see that in Iraq. And I think that directly relates to our country's inability for these terrorist nations to develop a nuclear weaponry. We've got to stop it. We cannot afford that for our safety and security.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Senator?

Jon Kyl:
Thanks. I'm not sure it's much of a plan to say that we have to talk to folks in other countries and push that, push that. What does that mean? Both of these gentlemen have agreed essentially with the policy of the administration, which is not to be a lone ranger, not to go it alone but to include all of the countries in the region that should be involved in negotiating with North Korea. China and Russia, South Korea and Japan, as well as the United States. That's what we're trying to do. And it has produced results in the security council since, after the test, even China agreed, for the first time, that it would be willing to impose sanctions on North Korea. That's a first time for them. Obviously our diplomacy is having some effect. Now we know what the direct negotiation did back when the Clinton administration tried that. First thing the North Koreans did was to cheat on the deal. That's how they got their nuclear weapon. So the key is to get the Chinese especially involved in the situation, inspect the cargo coming out of North Korea. We need to do a much more robust inspection of cargo through something called the Proliferation Security Initiative, which now 60 countries have signed up to. And if they will help us inspect cargo as those shipments go into their waters, it will be possible for us, I think, to stop some of the contraband coming out of North Korea. The biggest danger here is the transfer of technology from the North Koreans to other states or to terrorists, and that's the primary thing that we've got to be able to stop through this negotiation and enforcement of the sanctions that the U.N. has now voted for.

Ann Brown:
Okay. A rebuttal, sheriff?

Richard Mack:
Well, I don't know why we pay so much attention to the United Nations. President Bush himself just a couple years ago was calling them irrelevant and, because of their lack of support, the United Nations -- let's be real honest here -- is no friend of the United States. We need to be very careful about our involvement there. Furthermore, I really question president bush's diplomacy. He has refused to talk to Ahmadinejad from Iran. He's refused to talk to the president of North Korea. He keeps acting like that he's on some higher ground. He should negotiate with these people, and let's try to work things out.

Bill Buckmaster: Next question for Mr. Pederson. This is the most expensive campaign in Arizona history. Many are wondering why spend so much money for a job that pays $162,000 a year.

[Laughter]

Jim Pederson:
That's a good question. That's a real good question. You know, Bill, Arizona hasn't had a competitive U.S. Senate race in 25 years, so I don't think that we've really experienced what other states have experienced over the past 15 to 20 years in terms of U.S. Senate races. And it's regrettable. It's regrettable that we have to spend so much money in communicating what we believe in to the public. But unfortunately it's a fact of life. Now, I'm very pleased that we have the opportunity to provide a competitive race this year. You know, issues get on the table. They're discussed, and they're debated. If you have one side with an overwhelming supply of resources, either through the power of the incumbency or perhaps the district which makes it safe, you don't get that discussion. We're having that discussion this year, first time in a long, long time. You're seeing contrast between two people of entirely different visions, of entirely different backgrounds, and the people of Arizona are going to choose. I'm presenting my credentials, I'm presenting my experience. Senator Kyl talks about experience. I really don't think it's the kind of experience that's really helping Arizona families today. I'm a street competitor. I go out in the street and compete every day. I talk to families because they're my customers. I think I understand Arizona's families.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. Senator Kyl, it's an expensive campaign.

Jon Kyl:
It is indeed the most expensive. As a matter of fact, Jim Pederson has spent more money on this campaign than any other candidate for either the House or the Senate in either party throughout the entire United States. And I hope we don't get to the point where only millionaires or very wealthy people can afford to run for office. That would be not good for our society. It takes a lot of time and effort to go out and raise money in a campaign like this. But the good side of it is, we now have over 14,000 donors to my campaign. And to meet those folks is to really have a good sense about the future of the country. The more folks I meet in Arizona, the more optimistic I really am. But it is too bad that it does cost that much. It helps the television stations, but it would be nice if we could have better ways, such as this debate, for example, to get our views out and if some of the advertising were not as negative as it is. Obviously we would all be better off if it were more positive. I think the bottom line here is that voters are served by having as much information as possible. And as expensive as campaigns are, I wouldn't trade it for not getting information. It's hard to go out and raise the money. I'm sure Mr. Pederson doesn't like writing all those checks. But the bottom line is to get information to voters is critical for them to make sound judgments, and I'm glad that we can at least get that done.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. Sheriff, what's your take on this big-money campaign?

Richard Mack:
Well I'm glad that Senator Kyl has finally told the Arizona people to vote for me. [Laughter] Because I'm the only one not spending that money, and I'm definitely not the millionaire. And you know what? I think the way they have spent their money is kind of indicative of how they'll spend money in Washington, D.C. You know, you judge a man by the way he runs his campaign. And also, between the three of us, I am the only one who has not spent money on television and radio ads attacking my opponents. Primarily because I don't have any money, but I still haven't done it.

Bill Buckmaster:
All right. We are less than a minute to go before the closing statements, but we're coming back to -- for Mr. Pederson with the rebuttal on this question before we have the closing statements.

Jim Pederson:
Well, Mr. Kyl made representation it was 14,000 contributors. How many of those are from Arizona? You know, I have 7000 contributors, the majority of which are from Arizona. But if you want to talk about money, how about the five and a half million dollars that Mr. Kyl has received from Washington-based political action committees? What about the hundreds of thousands of dollars that he's received from the oil companies, from the pharmaceutical companies, from the tobacco companies? I don't think any of those companies really have a major presence in Arizona. What's that about solving the problems of Arizona? People know where my money's coming from. You know, I'd like a detailed explanation from Senator Kyl as to where his money is coming from.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. Gentlemen, we are at that time now for your closing statements. We have carved out two minutes for each of you here at the end of the forum. And we began with Senator Kyl so on this round here at the close, we'll begin with Mr. Pederson, go around the table for your closing statement.

Jim Pederson:
Thank you, Bill. And thank you, Ann. It was a pleasure. Ladies and gentlemen, my fellow Arizonans, this campaign is about change versus the status quo. It's about the people of Arizona versus special interests. It's about results. Results. That's what I go by. Results versus tough talk. My vision is about fixing things. As I said before, I've proven throughout my career that I'm pretty good at fixing things. We've got a lot of things that are broken in Arizona. And that's what I'm going to do when I go back to Washington. I'm going to work for the people of Arizona. Once upon a time, our representatives did that. They didn't get involved in the culture and the environment of Washington. They worked on specific problems that you face every day. And that's not happening anymore. Instead our representatives work on the problems of special interests. They work on the problems of lobbyists. Senator Kyl has done a pretty good job tonight of explaining to you why I don't need this job for the money, and he's right. I don't. And I don't need it for an ego stroke. You know, Roberta and I have been to plenty of cocktail parties. We don't need to go to anymore. Why don't we go back there, roll up our sleeves, and get to work for you? That's the principle that I've been guided by all my life. Let's fix our immigration problem. Let's fix our schools. Let's fix our health care system. Let's get that bottom-line result that I've been used to getting all my life that maybe the people back in Washington really don't understand because they don't recognize it. They don't talk to you. I've been spending a lot of time talking to you during the past year. Well, really all my life. I think I know, and I think I know how to provide the answers. Thank you so much.

Bill Buckmaster:
Thank you, Mr. Pederson. As we go now around the table, we will have Sheriff Mack with the final two minutes.

Richard Mack:
Well thank you, Bill and Ann, and I really want to reiterate that I appreciate KUAT for standing for the proper principles of freedom of the press and my personal freedom of speech. You know, 230 years ago, our founding fathers brought us a country based on individual liberty, limited government, and very little taxation. They did this as a result of the tyranny from the British crown based on over taxation and just way too much government regulation and oppression. You know, my favorite show was "Braveheart", and at one point Robert the Bruce repents for having betrayed William Wallace, and he's talking to his father, and he says, I want to believe. I want to believe as he does,' talking about William Wallace. Well, now I'm asking you to believe. Even you die-hard partisan republicans and democrats. You might even have a sign for one of my opponents. I'm asking you this question. How corrupt and scandalous does Washington, D.C. have to get before you say enough is enough and you vote for someone else? Do you really believe that voting for another democrat or republican is going to solve anything? You don't think it's time to go somewhere else yet? How bad does it have to get before you say, I'm leaving because the party left me and left American fundamentalism? That's what this election is about. It's about freedom and liberty. And I'm asking you to consider me the alternative.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. And the final two minutes tonight, Senator Kyl.

Jon Kyl:
Bill and Ann, thank you very much, and I thank both Richard and Jim as well for the spirited discussion. Carol and I met each other here at the University of Arizona, shall we say a long time ago. Both of us got our degrees here. She put me through law school as a registered nurse working over at St. Joseph's Hospital. Our daughter was born in Tucson. We've got two grandkids here now, and we always appreciate coming to Tucson to visit with folks here. I want to say that as I've traveled around the state, and it's no different in Phoenix or other parts of the state as it is here in Tucson, folks are concerned about their future. They realize that the economy is good right now, but there's always the question about tomorrow, and security is a critical issue for everyone. And I think, especially in these serious times when clearly we are challenged as we haven't been for a long time with these security concerns both on our border and with the war against the terrorists, folks turn to leaders who are knowledgeable, who are experienced, who have worked with others to get things done and have produced results. In my position as chairman of the terrorism subcommittee and helping to write many of the provisions of the laws that we are now using to be more safe, my work on victims' rights against sexual predators and other areas in which I have provided protection, I've tried to focus on those areas because I know it's of such great concern. So I've provided that experience, and I believe that that experience and that knowledge commends me for your vote, and I'm asking for your vote here this evening. You've got to be able to work together with other people to get things done. Working with John McCain, I think we've provided the kind of leadership that I've talked about here this evening. And so as we think about whether our vote is going to count or not and therefore which of the candidates to vote for, I get back to the point I made in the beginning. This race will be between Mr. Pederson and myself, and I'm asking for your support to continue to work for you as your U.S. Senator.

Bill Buckmaster:
Thank you very much, senator. Thank you, gentlemen. That concludes our Election 2006 forum with the three candidates for the U.S. Senate. This forum, along with all of our election 2006 political coverage, is available for your viewing anytime at kuat.org. I'm Bill Buckmaster. On behalf of Ann Brown of the "Arizona Daily Star" and all of the candidates with us tonight, thank you very much for watching. Good night.

school of Sustainability


  • Arizona State University is opening the world's first School of Sustainability in January 2007. The school will include a wide variety of disciplines that deal with sustaining human life on the planet. ASU President Michael Crow joins HORIZON to talk about the new school.
Guests:
  • Dr. Michael Crow - President, Arizona State University
  • Lynda Lovejoy - Presidential candidate, Navajo Nation
  • Senator Jon Kyl - republican incumbent and candidate for U.S. Senate
Category: Education

View Transcript
Michael Grant:
Tonight on Horizon, a new school will open up soon at ASU that's the first of its kind in the world, a school of sustainability. We'll talk to ASU President Michael Crow about that. Plus, the second of two interviews with candidates for president of the Navajo Nation. Tonight, we hear from challenger Lynda Lovejoy. That's next, on Horizon.

Announcer:
Horizon is made possible by the contributions from the friends of 8. Members of your Arizona PBS Station. Thank you.

Michael Grant:
Good evening and welcome to Horizon. I'm Michael Grant. It's the first of its kind in the world. Arizona State University's School of Sustainability. The school will open in January, and will offer undergraduate, graduate and doctoral degrees in sustainability, with different colleges within the university providing course work and research. The goal of the school is to find solutions to some of the most pressing issues of sustainability faced on the planet. Here now to talk about the School of Sustainability is ASU President Dr. Michael Crow. Dr. Crow, it's good to see you again.

Michael Crow:
Happy to be here.

Michael Grant:
My logical first question is what the heck is sustainability?

Michael Crow:
It's one of those words that I think is evolving. What it means for us is today, in fact, the census bureau announced that the nation reached 300 million people. Think of this as the technical interdisciplinary field as we go from 300 million people to 450 million people, that as we reach that the planet will be stressing less while we grow. So sustainability is the focused study how to grow and prosper while reducing the stress on the planet.

Michael Grant:
Microcosmically, it's like how do you move from 6 million or so people in Arizona to what's the latest? 15 million?

Michael Crow:
14 in 2040. How do you get to 14 million people in Arizona? 8 million or 9 million people in the Maricopa County and have elimination of the brown cloud, elimination of ozone, reduction in nighttime heat increases, the index at night, the return of bird species throughout the metropolitan area.

Michael Grant:
Reduced road rage.

Michael Crow:
That's more difficult. That's more complicated.

Michael Grant:
Seriously.

Michael Crow:
Reductions in travel.

Michael Grant:
Reductions in travel, I would think obviously it would have planning aspects to it.

Michael Crow:
Yeah.

Michael Grant: And those kinds of things.

Michael Crow:
Yeah, so sustainability is integration of social science, physical science, natural science, engineering, planning all of the disciplines coming together to plot the course or provide options. What are our best decision alternatives relative to water, energy and environment while providing for growth? In the past when I was an environmental studies student in the '70s, it was a how to block industry, how to slow down corporations and reduce growth. All that means is keep the people at the bottom of the ladder still at the bottom of the ladder. How do you develop it for economic stability and sustainability?

Michael Grant:
How did it come about?

Michael Crow:
It has been evolving for 15 years. When we become aware that the stresses on the planet are drastic and what we're seeing as population increases the stress increase global warming, water issues, pollution issues, lifestyle issues, quality of life issues, and so it's been an awareness that we're not addressing these things in a significant way.

Michael Grant:
First of kind in the world. Rest of world hasn't caught on? We're brighter than they are?

Michael Crow:
Not brighter just more nimble. The chemists will say we don't want to do that or the geologist says they don't want to work on it or the economist says we'll stay with ourselves. Here at ASU, we have intellectual agility. We had a meeting in New Mexico three years ago with leading Harvard scientists from New Mexico, Europe and all other and they helped us to design and outline how to evolve this school. They told us when we were done with the three-day retreat, they said we need to do it and get it right because it's time for this kind of thing to come around.

Michael Grant:
You mentioned the multiple disciplines involved. Will the school itself be in one location?

Michael Crow:
The school is part of our Global Institute of Sustainability. It will draw from disciplines throughout the university. It will have a central location where the faculty--where the core faculty can hangout and beyond that it will draw from the faculty from the rest of the university.

Michael Grant:
You have a wide panoply of disciplines here and issues and those kinds of things, I would think it would be a challenge designing a curriculum sort of figuring out where do you start first? And finish up with?

Michael Crow:
It's very challenging. There's core subjects that everybody will take and specialization that certain folks will take and some will take a social science angle and some will take a natural science angle and some a planning angle and each need a course of principles and theories and tools and so the school will provide those and also provide opportunity for everyone to approach the sustainability questions from all of those various prospectives.

Michael Grant:
What degree do you get? Do you get a bachelors?

Michael Crow:
BS in Sustainability, MS in Sustainability, PhD in Sustainability. You may also get a double major in chemistry. The degree itself will be in sustainability.

Michael Grant:
How many students?

Michael Crow:
It will start out with a few hundred undergraduates and we think it will be major for undergraduates and low hundreds of master's student and several scores of PhD students.

Michael Grant:
There is obviously a strong international element to this. Do you see it being an international magnet for students similarly interested elsewhere?

Michael Crow:
Yeah. We think it's a big deal in Arizona and will attract students and support from around the world. We launched the joint center for sustainability for Urban Academy of Sciences in China. We have multi-locations around the country and world already. This new school will help us to attract students from all over.

Michael Grant:
What about the research angle?

Michael Crow:
The research interestingly will be both local and global. So we already have Maricopa County instrumented. We are already working on the brown cloud problem and ecological problems related to a big city in the sonoran desert and extrapolate what we learn here from other environments and other places and you learn best by sustainability questions by focusing on local complexity and growing out from there and bringing it back together.

Michael Grant:
In fact, I seem to recall there are a couple of those sorts of research efforts underway right now.

Michael Crow:
We run right now the long-term ecological research facility for National Science Foundation focused on urban environments. We run right now Decision Center for Desert City which is funded by the National Science Foundation and biocomplexity issues and a lot of decision making in sustainability and environmental complexity and we are building on that base and have funding and extrapolating from where we are from this new school.

Michael Grant:
Speaking of funding, how does it get funded?

Michael Crow:
We have a planning gift from Julie Ann Rigley of $15 million and investing new faculty lines from the university and securing major, major investments from Washington in particular.

Michael Grant:
The Sustainability School, have you established bench marks for it at this point in time.

Michael Crow:
In terms of size, it's a modestly-sized school. In terms of impact, we want it to be a leading place for solutions for large-scale complex issues of sustainability. For instance, in planning metropolitan Phoenix, we want to see the nighttime heat index reduced. So right now the nighttime temperature has gone up in Phoenix by more than 10 degrees in the last 20 years. It's costly from an energy perspective and costly from a living perspective and an environmental perspective and costly on a water use perspective. We will find it based on the knowledge and problems we involve in our backyard.

Michael Grant:
We don't focus on this very much but it really is an interesting exercise in the interrelationships that exist among all of this and in how many different disciplines they involve.

Michael Crow:
Right. You have to imagine the fingers on my hand are the individual disciplines. Two hands are ranges of types of disciplines let's say the social and natural sciences. All of the problems of sustainability requires coupling of these. Not one major problem of sustainability can be solved by one or two disciplines only the coupling of disciplines. We had to grow up and mature as an intellectual enterprise to realize that and understand that. This school and institute are the means to do that.

Michael Grant:
All right. ASU President Dr. Michael Crow sounds like a fascinating idea. Thank you very much.

Michael Crow:
Glad to be here.

Michael Grant:
Next month Navajo voters will go to the polls to elect a president. The Navajo Nation extends across Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of Utah. The size of the area presents unique challenges and the Navajo Government has been described as the largest and most sophisticated form of Native-American Government. Issues that affect the Navajo Nation range from casino rights to the trade pact with Cuba to education. Tonight we talk to challenger Lynda Lovejoy. Lovejoy has had extensive public service experience, including serving in the New Mexico State Legislature for ten years. She received a Bachelor's in Public Administration at Northern Arizona University. Larry Lemmons spoke with Lynda Lovejoy about the issues.

Larry Lemmons:
Let start with an easy question. Why do you want to be president of the Navajo Nation?

Lynda Lovejoy:
I feel I can make a difference, a difference with integrity, with professionalism, with the energy and commitment to get things done for the people and I believe that I can do more than what is being done now. We are really in a stagnant condition more than ever before and I believe that I can come in and get results, be result oriented and be really looked into major--try to be--try to resolve major matters that are confronting our Navajo Nation government and one that I don't really see happening today. We have problems with lack of economic development. We need better--we need to better our standards in education. We need to pay attention to bettering the quality of life for our people, and we need to truly create jobs for our people. Our unemployment is at its highest level and we need to create jobs. We need to open up more doors that are closed now. We need to bring about and tap into many opportunities that are not being tapped into currently.

Larry Lemmons:
What's your opinion of the recent decision to allow gaming in the Navajo Nation?

Lynda Lovejoy:
Well, that was done--that is a real problematic situation for the Navajo people. The referendum was brought to the people twice, both times it was voted down. And our leaders manipulated the question so that no meant yes and yes meant no and that was a very confusing part. When it came time to voting, those who were opposed to gaming voted no when it meant yes and vice versa. And that was a real manipulation that was done to our people and--but now that it's legal--because of that manipulation, it is legal now and other doors have been opened to establish casinos. And just yesterday, Tuesday, the council voted to establish the gaming commission as--to operate like a private enterprise and I truly don't believe that's going to work. It's not going to benefit the Navajo people. The moneys are not going to come to the Navajo people as it is being articulated. It's not going to happen because this commission is going to become a--an enterprise in itself that's not being to benefit the Navajo people. However it got approved and we have to deal with it the best way we know how to make sure there's going to be accountability and revenue stream to help the Navajo Nation as a government and people.

Larry Lemmons:
What can you tell me about the trade pack with Cuba?

Lynda Lovejoy:
In as much as I support Navajo Nation looking for global networking and global economic opportunities, the trade agreement was--is still unknown by many Navajo people. I don't know when the trade agreement act was approved and whether the council approved it or whether the president himself approved that. It is not a well-known trade agreement that was acted upon. I still believe that there's a great deal of things that can be done at home by NAPI, Navajo Agriculture Products Industry, helping Navajos in times of emergencies, drought, extreme climate weather season and these are things that are still not--plans are still not in place to do things like this by NAPI. However they reached out to Cuba for trade agreement to sell. And as I said, in as much as I support going global, I'm hoping that we can--we can go back in and discuss some of these issues and truly make the trade agreement known to the people and what its intent and purpose is.

Larry Lemmons:
Are you the first woman to run for president of the Navajo Nation?

Lynda Lovejoy:
I'm not the first.

Larry Lemmons:
You're not the first?

Lynda Lovejoy:
I'm not the first woman to run. I'm the first to win the primary election.

Larry Lemmons:
How does it feel to be in that position?

Lynda Lovejoy:
It certainly is overwhelming and everyone was surprised about my win except myself of course because I know how to count. But truly as I am proud of it and I hope to be a role model to the younger women that are coming up the ladder and--but I still--I still believe that I'm running based on my qualifications and not based on my gender.

Larry Lemmons:
You are obviously not happy with the present administration. Is that the reason why you chose to run or was there some other reason?

Lynda Lovejoy:
Absolutely. If I was--first of all, I don't ever run against incumbents. I have never done that and respectfully I truly don't think it's a good idea to run against someone an incumbent rather if he or she is doing a good job. In this case, our current president is not doing a good job. As I said, he's not a decision maker. He relies too much on other people's ideas and decisions and he's been--I believe that he's listening to people who are misguiding him. There's a lot of missteps, miscommunication, a misguide and that's detrimental to our Navajo people and that's what has caused us to become a regressive nation rather than progressing and moving forward and tapping into economic and better educational opportunities for our people.

Larry Lemmons:
You had mentioned economic development, education, quality of life. If you are elected, what would you do towards those problems in the first 100 days?

Lynda Lovejoy:
First of all, we hope to submit some legislation that will support--that will remove barriers to support our small businesses, Navajo-owned businesses. We hope to submit legislation that needs dire modification to remove barriers and make streamline processes. We hope to--we hope to submit legislation that will make veterans a separate entity or a separate division that has been problematic for many, many years. And we hope to really examine our tribal enterprise and make their mission complement the Navajo Nation's goals. We want to reexamine many programs that are not being managed well and effectively and efficiently. Those are things we want to move fast on and get results, set some goals and achieve results. We want to have a little bit more hands-on to make sure that our workers are treated fairly. We want to establish wages that are fair. We would like to--and again, we want to move quickly on how we can look at some energy development; that is, looking at alternative forms such as renewables. Those are things we want to do and many, many more. We just know it's going to take time but the major or foremost interest as well is looking at our governments. We have a dysfunctional government. And we have a government that is not responsive to the needs of the people. We have a government that has its doors closed to the people. It is not involving our people. It is not allowing our grass roots people to have a voice in our government. And we want to look at immediate ways to put out front that we want a democratic process in our government. We want the people to have the right to voice their ideas and their opinions and in our government. And then secondly, we want to really truly establish a healthy working relationship with our own tribal leaders, our council delegates, and our chapter officials. And we want to immediately focus on getting the business done for the people which is not--which is not there now.

Larry Lemmons:
Thank you, Lynda Lovejoy for visiting us today.

Lynda Lovejoy:
Thank you.

Michael Grant:
If you're confused about the upcoming election. Horizon's "Vote 2006" web site can help. You can get to the web site at www.azpbs.org. Here are more details.

Mike Sauceda:
To get to the Arizona vote 2006 website, go to the 8 website at azpbs.org. Once you're there, click on vote 2006. That will take you to our Horizon Vote 2006 homepage which is loaded with features to help you prepare to cast your ballot. One of the most prominent features is top videos. With this feature you can view past Horizon election shows. The five tabs on the upper part of the screen allow you to access all the information you need on the propositions, state-wide races, the U.S. senate race, congressional races and clean elections debates. For example, if you click on the proposition tab, you'll get a list of propositions that will appear on the November ballot. Click on one of the propositions such as prop 100, and you'll get links to the text of the proposed amendment, analyses by the legislative council, arguments for and against and town halls on the measure. On the Arizona vote 2006 website you can access on line videos, RSS feeds, podcasts and the Cronkite 8 Poll. A couple of other features to checkout is my ballot. A printable form to remind you of your choices as you vote and you can check out when to watch Horizon election coverage.

Michael Grant:
Thank you very much for joining us this evening. And of course on our Friday edition we will have the usual reporter round table where we will cover the week's news and political developments. Thanks again for joining us. I'm Michael Grant. Have a great one. Good night.



We now present the U.S. Senate debate, a Horizon special presentation.

Announcer:
Welcome to KUAT's Election 2006 Senate Candidates Forum with candidates Jon Kyl, Richard Mack, and Jim Pederson. And now from the studios of KUAT television, it's your moderator, Bill Buckmaster.

Bill Buckmaster:
Good evening everybody. Welcome to our election 2006 political forum series presented by the KUAT Communications Group and Cox Communications. Joining me to question the three U.S. Senate candidates is Ann Brown, editorial page editor of the "Arizona Daily Star". Now let's meet the candidates. Republican Jon Kyl is seeking a third six-year term to the U.S. Senate. Prior to his Senate service, Mr. Kyl served four terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. Democrat Jim Pederson is a Phoenix businessman who has developed more than two dozen shopping centers around Arizona. He's the former state chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party. And libertarian Richard Mack is the former sheriff of Graham County. In the 1990's, Sheriff Mack successfully challenged the Brady Bill, arguing it was unconstitutional to require local police to conduct background checks on potential gun buyers. Now a word about our ground rules for tonight's forum. Each candidate will have a two-minute opening statement. In order to cover as much ground as possible, we are asking the candidates to limit their responses to no more than a minute and a half. Now, there will be a second or a 45-second rebuttal opportunity for the candidate to whom the question was originally asked. We may have to alter these time limits somewhat near the end of our forum so each candidate will have two minutes for their closing remarks. So we begin now with each candidate's opening statement. Senator Kyl, you're up first.

Jon Kyl:
Thank you. It's been an honor and pleasure for me to represent you in the United States Senate. Carol and I have so many friends, and we thank you for your support. This race presents a clear choice between Jim Pederson and myself. You know my record. You know what I stand for. For example, the recent historic Arizona water settlement which brought over 8,000 acre feet of new CAP water to Tucson. We know from my opponent's criticism of me what he stands for. He has chosen to criticize 200 of my votes. And if he were in the Senate voting the other way, we know that he would vote with John Kerry and John Kennedy 96\% of the time, with John McCain only 22\% of the time. Mr. Pederson talks about a new direction, but I suggest that's the wrong direction for Arizona. Look at just three issues: judges, immigration, and terrorism. He's running an ad right now that criticizes me for voting to confirm Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Alito to the United States Supreme Court, which shows just how far out of the mainstream he is. On immigration, perhaps today he can explain his flip-flop on the border fence. He'd explain why he believes that illegal immigrants should get U.S. citizenship and why he opposed voter ID at the polls. On the important issue of terrorism, perhaps today he can explain why-- how he can not only leave, but how he would recommend winning these wars against terrorists. I think the voters of Arizona deserve knowledgeable and experienced leadership. The writer for the "Arizona Daily Star" said with respect to Mr. Pederson's position on the Iraq war that, that with Mr. Pederson's vision, victory is nowhere in sight. John McCain and I have worked together to provide experienced leadership for Arizona you can trust. I want to thank KUAT for the opportunity to discuss these and many other issues today. Thank you.

Bill Buckmaster:
All right. Thank you, Senator. Sheriff Mack?

Richard Mack:
Well, thanks. My name is Richard Mack, and I approve this debate. [Laughter] As a matter of fact, I'm really grateful to be here. I don't always get invited. And I think it's kind of astonishing that I don't get invited to all of them and even more astonishing that Senator Kyl has refused to debate if I attend the debates. And I think that the democratic process should include everybody that's on the ballot. There's only three of us, and I believe I bring a lot to the table here. I am a former police officer, a former sheriff, and a former teacher. And while I was serving as sheriff in Graham County, I did sue the Clinton administration to stop the federal intervention that was part of the Brady Bill. And it was an extreme intrusion by the federal government and the Clinton administration. So, yes, I did sue the bill Clinton administration. And you might say that I was the only person in history that ever sued Bill Clinton on a nonsexual matter. I did learn a lot, though, through this political process, and I studied what made America great, and I found out that the founding fathers established this country based on self-rule, limited government, and basically this principle: that they would teach and stand for correct principles and allow the people to govern themselves. This does not exist today. It really doesn't matter who's in charge: Republicans or Democrats. Government gets bigger, more onerous, and the deficit gets gigantic, just like it is today. Since Ronald Reagan left office and during the 20 years that Senator Kyl has been in Washington, D.C., the federal budget has gone up 550\%. This cannot continue. It cannot be sustained. I offer myself as an alternative. That's Richard Mack for U.S. Senate. Thanks.

Bill Buckmaster:
Thank you, sheriff. And now Mr. Pederson.

Jim Pederson:
Thank you, Bill. Thank you, Ann. And thanks to KUAT for providing us this opportunity. It's always good to come on the University of Arizona campus. I spent quite a few years here getting two degrees, and this campaign has really provided me with a chance to meet so many people, ex-schoolmates that I went to U of A with, Casa Grande high school, people that I did business deals with a long, long time ago. And getting reacquainted and making new friends have certainly been a privilege for me over the past year. Our approach to the issues is a product of our life experience. I spent the last 30 years in business, so I guess that influences how I look at things. Sometimes, when you take over an existing business or project, things are so messed up that you really have to come in and make a complete change, change of personnel, and start over. Folks, I think that's where we are today. The mess in Iraq, our broken borders we can't seem to fix, no-bid contracts, unfair tax policies that disproportionately affect the middle class, corruption and immoral behavior at the highest levels. And the most important thing: an administration that doesn't seem to know how to keep us safe. It's time to start over. It's time to clean house. It's time to replace the personnel that should be responsible for finding solutions. Now, I've proven in my career that I'm pretty good at fixing things. Washington's broken. It's time to fix it. Remember, you can't change Washington until you change the people you send there. Thank you.

Bill Buckmaster:
Thank you, Mr. Pederson. Ann Brown is going to begin the questioning for us tonight.

Ann Brown:
And Sheriff Mack, you're going to be the first to answer this question. It looks as though there will be a 700-mile fence along the border. Now what would you like to do to address the illegal immigration problem? And please be specific in both terms of plans and procedures.

Richard Mack:
This is right up my alley. First of all, my degree is in Latin American studies. I speak fluent Spanish and have been in southern Arizona about 35 years. And, first of all, I would really like to see some diplomacy reaching out to the new president of Mexico. Clinton and Bush really failed in this regard to play patty cake with President Fox, and they should have taken a much tougher stand and had him get more involved in helping us instead of promoting illegal immigration. I really have to question a 700-mile fence. That border is 2000 miles long. I support strict enforcement at the border. We have to. We cannot pretend to have a war on terrorism and have such a poor, unsecure border, especially on the Mexico border. We know for a fact that terrorists have gotten through, and this has been -- the blame falls directly on the democrats and republicans that have been in office who have failed to enforce our immigration laws. We don't need another immigration law. We need to enforce the laws that are there. I don't blame the poor people from Mexico for wanting to come here, but we cannot take all the poor from Mexico and provide for them here in the United States. We have got to be tougher and stretch that fence.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Mr. Pederson, be specific with plans and procedures.

Jim Pederson:
Let's be specific with plans and procedures. The other night, Ann, on our Phoenix debate, I strongly recommended to Senator Kyl that he go arm and arm to the House of Representatives and try to sell his colleagues in the house on the plan to pass that Senate. That was a pretty good bill, contained strong border enforcement, additional border patrol agents backed up by the resources and technology they desperately need. It called for a practical way to deal with the undocumented people that are already here. It called for a great guest worker program that works. It's like the program that I experienced when I was growing up in Casa Grande. People came across that border, they worked, and they went back. But there's a partisan divide in Washington today. That's why we're not seeing true immigration reform. A fence? Sure, it will help. But if we think just a fence is going to solve our immigration problem, we've got another think coming. Jon Kyl voted against that bill, Ann. He voted against-- well, the congressional office estimated there would be $8 billion provided to enforce the provisions of that agreement. He voted against that. You know, the taxpayers in this state should be outraged. Here we are, we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars of Arizona's taxpayers' money to enforce what should be a federal issue. Our hospitals, our schools, our jails, our law enforcement -- we've got to bring this within the framework of the law. My opponent really doesn't have a good plan. It's bound up in political rhetoric. He's been back there for 20 years. Nothing's been done. Where are the results?

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Senator Kyl, and be specific.

Jon Kyl:
I will be specific. I have a bill which was introduced that has four key elements to it. It's comprehensive immigration reform. It starts with securing the border, including building fencing, more roads, more border patrol, more detention spaces, sensors, everything we need to bring the border under control, more law enforcement at the interior of the country, including at the workplace. We've got to have an electronic verification of employment to ensure that nobody that's not authorized to work is employed in the country. We need, third, to do something about the people who are here illegally today, at least 12 million illegal immigrants. And finally, we need a temporary worker program in this country. If you go to Yuma, for example, today, you'll find that we're going to have difficulty bringing in the lettuce crop unless there's some kind of ability for people to work there, and that means, in my view, work here temporarily. As Mr. Pederson just said, the way the law used to be, you got a visa to be here temporarily. When the work was done, you went home and then came back when the work was here again. Under the bill he supports, the bill I voted against, once those temporary workers are here, they can immediately petition to be here permanently and then become U.S. citizens. The question I asked in my opening statement was why should a temporary worker be automatically put on a path to citizenship when the jobs aren't here anymore? Building houses, for example, we need workers right now. But sometime in the future, those jobs are not going to be here. And does it make sense for us to convert those temporary workers into permanent workers and U.S. citizens or have them return home, to come back when there's work available for them again?

Ann Brown:
Thank you. And Sheriff Mack, you have a 45-second rebuttal?

Richard Mack:
Well, neither Mr. Kyl or Mr. Pederson addressed one key issue in this entire immigration debate, and that is the reasons that the Mexican poverty-stricken people come here in the first place. They know darn well that they're going to get a bunch of freebies from our socialistic government here. And we have got to stop that. We cannot pay people who come here illegally with taxpayer dollars and give them all these benefits for free. That must stop, and we must publicize that on the other side of the border, south of the Rio Grande.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. Thank you. Our next question is to Mr. Pederson. Is America safer today than we were before September 11, 2001?

Jim Pederson:
No, we're not, Bill. There was a national intelligence estimate that came out a couple of weeks ago. This is a compilation of estimates by all of the intelligence agencies of the federal government. It mainly concluded that because of our activities in Iraq that America is not safer, that we have not made progress in the war on terror, that we're not going after the terrorists where they are. If we're going to go after terrorism, let's do it in a practical, honest, and common sense way. Let's go after the terrorists where they are. Let's reassert our leadership position in the world, a position that we've lost. Let's rebuild our military, currently 100,000 troops short. Let's not come back to cut back on homeland security funding. All of these kinds of things, if they were combined together, would provide for the safety and security of the United States. But on each one of these issues, our government, rubber stamped by Senator Kyl, has a failing grade.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. Thank you. Senator?

Jon Kyl:
I would argue that we are safer today. Remember that the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. couldn't even talk to each other before 9/11. After 9/11, we understood that there were changes that had to be made primarily in our intelligence-gathering operations as well as laws that prohibited us from doing certain things. The PATRIOT Act resulted from that. The Tools to Fight Terrorism Act, I helped to write both of those bills. Another bill I wrote, called the Moussaoui Fix, to solved the problem that existed when we couldn't get into Zacarias Moussaoui's computer before 9/11, even though we suspected that he had something to do with terrorists. So I think that we've created laws to make things better. And we've gone after terrorists. We have broken up a wide variety of potential attacks, including recently in Great Britain, and probably over 100 attacks in other places of the world. Remember, before 9/11, we had been attacked four times: the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole, our troops in Cobart Towers, the American Embassies in the African countries. So it's clear that the terrorists are going to fight us and they're going to try to find the creases where we are weakest. We've got to continue to do everything we can to protect our homeland but appreciate the fact that, in this war, our best ability to win is to go after them where they are, to be on the offense. And that means having a very robust intelligence capability. And we've created, as I said, the mechanism to be able to do that in the future. So I would argue that we indeed in the homeland here are safer than we were five years ago.

Bill Buckmaster:
And what do you think, Sheriff Mack?

Richard Mack:
Absolutely not. We are not safer, and we are not more secure, and our position in the world has been lessened. And furthermore we're less free. And part of that is due entirely to the unconstitutional PATRIOT Act that Senator Kyl helped author. It doesn't take a first grade student to know and understand that the onerous provisions in the PATRIOT Act are unconstitutional. And Senator Kyl calls them tough laws. I call them unconstitutional. And to surrender some of our freedoms that Benjamin Franklin warned us not to do, to surrender freedom for security, is wrong. And just about everything that the founding fathers warned us not to do, we're doing it today, all in the name of fighting terrorism or providing for this compassionate conservativism made up by George Bush. The PATRIOT Act is one of the reasons why I say what's worse? The attacks on our country or the attacks on our liberty? And I thought we were supposed to be defending liberty. And the people we put into office should be doing that, not writing unconstitutional laws.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. And the rebuttal now, Mr. Pederson.

Jim Pederson:
Senator Kyl, where are the results? You certainly have reassuring tones, but where is the evidence? Where is the evidence that the United States is safer? Where is the evidence of our progress in Iraq? Where is the evidence of our progress in fighting terror worldwide? Where is the evidence that we're uniting the world community to proceed on the war on terror? Where is this evidence? Where are the results? We don't need tough talk. We don't need reassuring terms. We need somebody to roll up their sleeves and get to work.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Senator Kyl, this question will start with you. I'd like you to discuss the situation in Iraq and whether the U.S. should issue a formal timetable for withdrawal of forces.

Jon Kyl:
No, we shouldn't. And that's the consensus of our military leaders there. To do that would simply tell our enemy exactly what they have to do in order to prevail. To wait until we leave, chaos would result. That country would implode. The countries around it, I think, would begin to move away from the position that they've had in the past, which is to support countries like: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, other countries. After 9/11, especially after we went into Afghanistan -- and they understood we were serious, we were going to win the war against these terrorists -- they began to work with us. As a matter of fact the Pakistanis have helped catch over half of the terrorists that have been apprehended worldwide. I believe they would begin to hedge their bets, because all of them live in a very dangerous neighborhood there, and they all have terrorist potential within their own countries. As a result, were we to leave Iraq, not only would that country implode and an awful lot of people I think die, particularly those who supported the government and who were on our side, but you'd find that the support that we're getting to fight the terrorists around that area would also begin to fade as those countries began to hedge their bets with others, and that result would be that the United States would be less able to win the war. The problem in Iraq is that it is a battle in the overall war worldwide, and you don't win the worldwide war by pulling out of the central battle. And that's what Osama Bin Laden calls it. In fact, Bin Laden calls Baghdad the capitol of his new caliphate. That's a central battle and we can't back out of.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Sheriff Mack.

Richard Mack:
Well, I really am sorry that we ever went to Iraq. I'm the only candidate in this that never supported the war. I'm against war. I'm against killing. We should not have done this. I believe in a strong national defense. I'm all for that. But that wasn't what this war was about. First we got -- we must remember that we went there based on faulty intelligence. Even the White House admits that. It was faulty intelligence. There's been accusations a lot stronger than that, but I'll just leave it at that. And the pretense seems to be that, as long as we're in Iraq, we're keeping all the terrorists there, and we're keeping them occupied because that's where they are. That is bull. If we had been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as we are now -- and right now we have caused a much worse problem than existed at the time we went there. But if we were fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq at the time 9/11 occurred, 9/11 would have still happened. These people don't stop because we're right there in Iraq and they wouldn't have stopped. And this happened because of faulty intelligence and faulty preparation and because we have not done the right things with middle eastern foreign policy. I have two words to say about failed policy in the Middle East. Iraq.

Ann Brown:
Mr. Pederson.

Jim Pederson:
Well Richard, you're 100\% right. We got into Iraq for the wrong reasons, but we're there. I'm not for a unilateral pullout by any means. But I am in favor of a more intelligent way of prosecuting this war. Above all, I'm in favor of getting our young men and women off the streets of Baghdad. That's where they're being killed. They're being killed by the car bombs, the roadside bombs, the suicide bombs. Get them into forward-operating bases. Could be in Iraq. Fully respond to the threat of safety and security of the United States. Mr. Kyl, you mentioned Afghanistan. I don't see how in the world you can hold that example up as any kind of a success. The Taliban is growing. Al-Qaeda is growing. Terrorist networks, the poppy fields that produce heroin that finance much of the war on terror is growing. How in the world can that be an example of a successful United States policy? It's not. And that's a problem. You can't go after the solution to the problem unless you admit the problem. This administration, backed up by Senator Kyl, says there's no problem. That's the biggest problem that I have. They think things are okay the way they are. They want to continue with the status quo. They're looking through rose-colored glasses. They won't admit that a problem exists.

Ann Brown:
Okay. Senator Kyl, rebuttal?

Jon Kyl:
Well, obviously there are huge problems. The president has made it crystal clear that this is difficult. It's long. It's not going to be easy. But I wonder, when Mr. Pederson says that Afghanistan is not an example of success, did he think it was better under the Taliban when little girls couldn't go to school and the religious police were roaming the streets rounding up people for doing the wrong thing, taking people to soccer stadiums and beheading them? That's what this world would look like if these evil doers got their way. They intend to bend us to their will or kill us or die trying, and you've got to go after them where they are. And Afghanistan is a significant example of success, though of course it's not done. The bottom line here is that the United States has got to go after the terrorists where they are. They're in Afghanistan. They're in Iraq. They're in a lot of other places in the world. And as Ronald Reagan said in the Cold War, the strategy is we win; they lose.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay and the next question is for Sheriff Mack. We're on the university of Arizona campus, so it's appropriate we talk a little education here tonight. And I want to talk about the federal "No Child Left Behind" Law that promised educational reform in this country. Has it, Sheriff Mack, lived up to its promise?

Richard Mack:
[Laughter] Another typical example of why you don't want Washington, D.C. politicians running education. A huge failure, huge cost, and one of the reasons why I agree with Ronald Reagan that we should abolish the department of education. He said it first. I don't take credit for it. But I will be the leader in helping Ronald Reagan's promise come to fruition. We should not have the department of education. We should not have our politicians from Washington, D.C. trying to micromanage education out here in Tucson or southern Arizona. We elect school boards for that. We have our parents and teachers association. We can handle it. We promise Washington, D.C. we can handle our own education out here. And we left a lot more children behind. I have lots of friends in education. I've been in education. And there's not one of them that likes it. One here and there administrator says, oh, yeah, but we love this money coming in. Well, why don't you just keep your own money. Quit sending it to Washington, D.C. where it gets wasted, and then we don't have to worry about it. Keep our money here, and keep our education control right here locally. I support Arizona. I know Arizona teachers and parents and school boards can do a better job than Washington, D.C. and "No Child Left Behind" proves it.

Bill Buckmaster:
"No Child Left Behind", Mr. Pederson.

Jim Pederson:
Well, I agree with Richard that it's certainly not fulfilling its promise. What "No Child Left Behind" is -- are a bunch of requirements, a bunch of standards. They're not backed up by research. In my business, when you outline a problem or outline a project, you put the people in charge. You make sure they have the resources available, you make sure they have the leadership, the backup. Then you stand back and watch. And if the project doesn't proceed, then you have another sit-down. Make sure the resources are there, and then make a determination as to what's wrong. The problem with "No Child Left Behind" is that there are no resources, so you've got the cart before the horse. You've got all the requirements, all the standards without the resources to accomplish them. You know, I like to keep it simple. We all know the bad, horrible statistics that we have concerning education in Arizona today. Ranked near the bottom in practically every category. What does that say about our generation? Why don't we do three things: raise teachers' salaries, limit class size, fully fund special education. If we just did those three things, you would see a remarkable improvement in the educational status of our young people.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. Senator Kyl, some of your thoughts on "No Child Left Behind".

Jon Kyl:
Thanks. Well there was a big article in the paper up in Phoenix today about the fact that Arizona ranked 50th out of 50 states in spending. That's an indictment obviously of the state government for not putting more money into the kinds of things that Mr. Pederson was just now talking about. But at the federal government level, I think we've been robust in trying to support education, including in Arizona. Arizona, from the standpoint of federal funding for primary and secondary education, ranks seventh out of the 50 states. We've done a good job for Arizona. As a matter of fact, this year it's $5.1 billion. That's more than half of the budget of the state of Arizona. That's a robust amount of federal education spending to the state. "No Child Left Behind" spending has increased 45\% since 2001. In fact, special education that Jim mentioned has gone up 67\% at the federal level. Now, I don't know the comparable numbers at the state level, and it could be that not enough is being done and more should be done at the state level, but the concept for "No Child Left Behind" was the federal government is not going to continue to just pour money into states without results. And we didn't want to just test to an average. If you met that, then you got the money. The concept was they're after the kids below the average. No child should be left behind. And so federal money would be available for tutoring of those kids, sending them to other schools, more money to their own schools to do a better job. The bottom line: so that every child could perform to their very best and that no child in fact would be left behind. And it is beginning to work.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. And, Sheriff, we'll come back to you. You've got the final few seconds on this subject.

Richard Mack:
Well, this doesn't need very long to wrap up, I don't believe, because it's so obvious this program has not worked. It's been a huge failure. And here Senator Kyl talks about a 45\% increase in money, but results are worse. Just look at Arizona being 50th now. And I think that mark is a typical example of just absolutely get the federal government out of the way. And the feds should not -- the federal government should not be in charge of controlling education dollars, period.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Mr. Pederson, we'll start with you with this next question. A senator is a person who's going to work at a national level, but you're elected by the voters of Arizona. So I'd like to talk with you-- you to talk a little bit about specific programs that you think would help Tucson's economy as well as the rest of the United States.

Jim Pederson:
And I will answer that question. But if you permit just a couple of seconds, I can't permit Senator Kyl's statements to go unchallenged about education. You talk to any educator in this state, he has voted against countless measures that would have provided funds for education in this state. He was responsible for keeping, over the last five years, about $200 million worth of "No Child Left Behind" funds coming into Arizona. Back to your question. Economic stability in Pima County, producing jobs, has been an issue for many, many years. I was doing an administrative internship with the city of Tucson back in the late 60's. It was an issue then. We need to develop jobs in Tucson, in Pima County. I know my own business, I haven't been able to get anything going down here mainly because the average household income is quite a bit lower than the rest of the state, and the rest of the state is really not in that great of shakes either. But to illustrate your point concerning your question, I was talking to the economic development director that's in charge of your overall agency for economic development in Pima County. His agency is responsible for getting a Mexican company to come to Tucson. Provided about 200 jobs, as I recall. He told me that he couldn't even get a letter out of the congressional delegation to help him out. I said, you know, if I were a senator, I'd be on that plane to Mexico City with you to help you out. That is a primary responsibility of any elected official.

Ann Brown: Thank you. Senator Kyl?

Jon Kyl:
Well, the key to economic growth is keeping taxes and regulations as low as possible, and we've seen, since the 2001 and 2003 tax rate cuts, that our business has boomed. Five straight years of economic growth. And this helps all communities. It helps communities like Tucson, it helps other communities in Arizona. As John F. Kennedy said, this rising tide lifts all votes. The difference between Mr. Pederson and me is that he would allow those tax rates to expire, going back up to where they used to be. Now, that would result for the average family, a 58\% increase in taxes. Over $2000 a year for the average family. Think about small businesses. The only way you tax the rich is by raising the top marginal rate from 35\%. Small businesses, about 420,000 of them in Arizona, many in Tucson, pay at that top marginal rate. You hurt them if you do that. Capital gains and dividends rates have been lowered. That's the best way to help business is to keep those rates low. Mr. Pederson would let them go back up to where they were. That doesn't just hurt the businesses. It hurts investors. You know, 80\% of seniors report dividends or capital gains, and many of these are not wealthy people. In fact, almost 40\% of the people with incomes less than $50,000 report capital gains and dividends. So the problem with the idea of raising taxes is it hurts everybody. And the best way - there are many other things we could talk about here - but the best way to keep economic growth moving is to keep regulation and taxes as low as possible.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Sheriff?

Richard Mack:
Well finally I agree with Senator Kyl. We do need to keep regulation and taxes low. Regulation means government out of your life. We need to get government out of this. But it's amazing. And I'm really shocked that my opponents haven't talked about this issue before. If you really want to help Arizona -- and the senator does represent Arizona in Washington, D.C. He is the representative for this state to help this state in every way that he possibly can within the restraints of the constitution. Isn't it amazing, though, that western states are all owned and controlled by the federal government? 85\% of the land of Arizona is federally owned or controlled. 85\%. We're not even Arizona. Why do we call ourselves Arizona? We're an enclave of the federal government. They own our land. We can't even control our own geography and our own land, we're just an enclave of the federal government. I don't want that. That's not acceptable. New Hampshire is 2\% owned by the federal government. 2\%. And we're 85. Something's wrong with that picture. Land is where you have jobs. Land is where you have tax base. Land is where you have your economy. I want our land back, and I will get it back to Arizona.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Rebuttal, Mr. Pederson?

Jim Pederson:
Mr. Kyl has a very myopic view of the economy and what makes business thrive. I'm the business guy. He's a supply-sider. They also call that voodoo economics, trickle down. There's more that business needs than just tax cuts. Senator Kyl, I'm all for tax cuts. I'm just not for debt. But what do I need as a businessman? I need stable neighborhoods, I need good schools, I need infrastructure investment by state, local, and federal government. Above all, I need rising incomes. That's not being done in Arizona right now. Small business needs a reform in the health care system. Small business needs good transportation systems. You know, that's what a U.S. senator should be doing for the state.

Bill Buckmaster:
Thank you so much. Now we'll move on to another question. Of course it's economic-related. Even though, Senator Kyl, the oil prices are down from their historic levels earlier this year, America is still very dependent on foreign oil. Is it time to really increase the drilling in North America?

Jon Kyl:
Yes, it is. As a matter of fact, we have control over our own destiny here. It used to be that we imported only about 35\% of our oil from places like the gulf, now about 60\% to 65\% is imported. And yet we could, by simply moving into areas like the Gulf of Mexico in the deep waters -- I'm talking 10,000 feet down. We could be producing huge new quantities of oil and gas. The Senate and House have each passed a bill to do that. They have to be reconciled in a conference committee, but I strongly support that. There was an area set aside in Alaska specifically for this purpose, which we could also explore for oil and gas and we know it's there. And that would help us reduce this dependence on oil from other sources. There are a lot of other things we could do as well. To the extent that ethanol is now being used as an additive, we could make it a lot cheaper by eliminating the 54 cent tariff that the United States imposes on Brazilian ethanol. Senator Feinstein and I have a bill that would do that. We can reduce the number of these boutique fuel blends. Most of our gas comes from California. A lot of this gas is refined over there. If we could get those blends down to about six, it would substantially reduce the cost. As a matter of fact, in the energy bill, I was able to win an agreement for Arizona and California and Nevada would also get it, that in the hot summer months that we don't have to burn as much ethanol because it costs more, number 1, but our hot climate takes these oxygenates and creates ozones so it's not even good for the environment. So there are a lot of ways we could reduce the cost, but a lot starts right here in our own backyard.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. What do you think, sheriff?

Richard Mack:
Yes. Absolutely we should expand our oil drilling and offer up all sorts of different places: Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, all sorts of places for drilling. But we also need to look at other sources of energy in our country. Solar energy works. There's other places and other things we can do to promote other sources of energy besides just oil, which is a danger to the environment in some areas. But we've got to understand that the environmentalists have had a strangle hold on our government and on our exploration that has cost jobs, and the worst thing that we've allowed to take place is our dependency on the middle east for our oil. And it's one of the reasons that we're stuck in an unprofitable war right now. And we should not allow this to occur. And getting off of that dependency and that addiction will make us a safer country.

Bill Buckmaster:
And, Mr. Pederson, on the energy question?

Jim Pederson:
Senator Kyl, you can't drill your way out of our dependence on foreign oil or our dependence on fossil fuels. You have countless votes supporting the oil and gas industry, tax subsidies, tax credits. You have very few votes, if any, promoting alternative fuels. Again -- and to keep it simple, my analysis -- if you have higher mileage for automobiles -- get them out to 40, 42 miles a gallon like they have in Europe today. That would reduce our dependency on foreign oil by a good 60\%. More efficient buildings, something I know a little bit about, another 20\%. Alternative fuels, another 20\%. I think we could accomplish all of that within 10 to 12 years. You've voted against every one of these measures. You said something the other night at our Phoenix debate that was unbelievable to me. You said that you're really not in favor of higher-mileage cars because that would lessen the weight of these cars, thereby causing more highway deaths. I have never heard that, never heard a rationale for that. I think it indicates that you really haven't put a lot of thought into this because you've been supporting the oil industry in this state, in this country, the richest industry in the entire history of our country.

Bill Buckmaster:
All right. And you get the rebuttal, Senator.

Jon Kyl: Well, supporting the oil industry, I voted against the big energy bill that Jim Pederson would have voted for, and it's the bill that had $65 billion in subsidies for oil companies and $14.5 billion in tax subsidies for oil companies. He would have voted for it. Who would have subsidized the oil companies? On the matter of cafe standards, the sources are not mine. They are officials - for example, national academy of sciences and others have demonstrated that you get better fuel mileage by making the cars a lot lighter. All I said was there's a tradeoff. Understand that if you go to 40 miles a gallon, you're probably looking at 5000 highway fatalities a year as a result of those lighter-weight vehicles. That's a tradeoff that Americans are going to have to deal with. Of course we can't just drill our way, but there are a lot of things that we can do, starting with at least increasing production that we have available to us in the United States.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Sheriff Mack, this question is for you. Condoleezza Rice is in Tokyo today, I believe, drumming up support for the U.N. resolution for sanctions against North Korea. I wondered if you could talk a little bit about how you feel about the new U.N. resolution and also if the United States should engage in talks directly with North Korea.

Richard Mack:
I am in favor of direct talks with North Korea, absolutely. And I don't know why President Bush continues to take positions of antagonism towards some of our enemies. In law enforcement, I was a hostage negotiator. We do negotiate with criminals. We do negotiate with people who cause us problems. Let's negotiate if we can't through diplomacy, get rid of a lot of these dangers and cause peace, for heaven's sakes, I'm much more for that than I am invading countries as we seem to be doing ever since World War II, we've invaded about 18 to 20 different countries. I thought we were the country that would provide the world peace, and we need to set the example with that. And, yes, absolutely diplomacy, negotiation, sit down and talk. I don't care. Get on the phone if you have to, President Bush, but let's take care of this threat. Instead, during this whole North Korea nuclear test and proliferation of nuclear weapons, we have Congress -- what are they doing? Ah. Getting rid of internet gambling. Boy, that really helped. Now, let's get serious about this problem. We must engage China, Japan, and South Korea leadership and have them part of this diplomatic process.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Mr. Pederson?

Jim Pederson:
That's pretty good, Richard. I don't think I need to say any more, but I will. And I recall President Bush's State of the Union address in 2002 where he pledged to the American people that no terrorist nation would ever develop the capability of nuclear weaponry. Well, here we are today. We had a test in North Korea just a few days ago. Here we are today with Iran. It's not a question of "if" concerning nuclear capability. It's a question of "when". And I agree with Richard. Through our cowboy diplomacy, our lone ranger approach, we have alienated the rest of the world. The only reason that North Korea is where it is today is that they have a benefactor: China. They have a back door. We're going to have to take that situation and talk to not only North Korea but talk to China, talk to Russia, talk with all the leading powers of the world. Now, the recent U.N. resolution was encouraging, but we need to push that. We need to push that. This administration has had almost a contempt for the rest of the world, for the rest of the countries of the world, a lack of respect. You can see that in Iraq. And I think that directly relates to our country's inability for these terrorist nations to develop a nuclear weaponry. We've got to stop it. We cannot afford that for our safety and security.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Senator?

Jon Kyl:
Thanks. I'm not sure it's much of a plan to say that we have to talk to folks in other countries and push that, push that. What does that mean? Both of these gentlemen have agreed essentially with the policy of the administration, which is not to be a lone ranger, not to go it alone but to include all of the countries in the region that should be involved in negotiating with North Korea. China and Russia, South Korea and Japan, as well as the United States. That's what we're trying to do. And it has produced results in the security council since, after the test, even China agreed, for the first time, that it would be willing to impose sanctions on North Korea. That's a first time for them. Obviously our diplomacy is having some effect. Now we know what the direct negotiation did back when the Clinton administration tried that. First thing the North Koreans did was to cheat on the deal. That's how they got their nuclear weapon. So the key is to get the Chinese especially involved in the situation, inspect the cargo coming out of North Korea. We need to do a much more robust inspection of cargo through something called the Proliferation Security Initiative, which now 60 countries have signed up to. And if they will help us inspect cargo as those shipments go into their waters, it will be possible for us, I think, to stop some of the contraband coming out of North Korea. The biggest danger here is the transfer of technology from the North Koreans to other states or to terrorists, and that's the primary thing that we've got to be able to stop through this negotiation and enforcement of the sanctions that the U.N. has now voted for.

Ann Brown:
Okay. A rebuttal, sheriff?

Richard Mack:
Well, I don't know why we pay so much attention to the United Nations. President Bush himself just a couple years ago was calling them irrelevant and, because of their lack of support, the United Nations -- let's be real honest here -- is no friend of the United States. We need to be very careful about our involvement there. Furthermore, I really question president bush's diplomacy. He has refused to talk to Ahmadinejad from Iran. He's refused to talk to the president of North Korea. He keeps acting like that he's on some higher ground. He should negotiate with these people, and let's try to work things out.

Bill Buckmaster: Next question for Mr. Pederson. This is the most expensive campaign in Arizona history. Many are wondering why spend so much money for a job that pays $162,000 a year.

[Laughter]

Jim Pederson:
That's a good question. That's a real good question. You know, Bill, Arizona hasn't had a competitive U.S. Senate race in 25 years, so I don't think that we've really experienced what other states have experienced over the past 15 to 20 years in terms of U.S. Senate races. And it's regrettable. It's regrettable that we have to spend so much money in communicating what we believe in to the public. But unfortunately it's a fact of life. Now, I'm very pleased that we have the opportunity to provide a competitive race this year. You know, issues get on the table. They're discussed, and they're debated. If you have one side with an overwhelming supply of resources, either through the power of the incumbency or perhaps the district which makes it safe, you don't get that discussion. We're having that discussion this year, first time in a long, long time. You're seeing contrast between two people of entirely different visions, of entirely different backgrounds, and the people of Arizona are going to choose. I'm presenting my credentials, I'm presenting my experience. Senator Kyl talks about experience. I really don't think it's the kind of experience that's really helping Arizona families today. I'm a street competitor. I go out in the street and compete every day. I talk to families because they're my customers. I think I understand Arizona's families.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. Senator Kyl, it's an expensive campaign.

Jon Kyl:
It is indeed the most expensive. As a matter of fact, Jim Pederson has spent more money on this campaign than any other candidate for either the House or the Senate in either party throughout the entire United States. And I hope we don't get to the point where only millionaires or very wealthy people can afford to run for office. That would be not good for our society. It takes a lot of time and effort to go out and raise money in a campaign like this. But the good side of it is, we now have over 14,000 donors to my campaign. And to meet those folks is to really have a good sense about the future of the country. The more folks I meet in Arizona, the more optimistic I really am. But it is too bad that it does cost that much. It helps the television stations, but it would be nice if we could have better ways, such as this debate, for example, to get our views out and if some of the advertising were not as negative as it is. Obviously we would all be better off if it were more positive. I think the bottom line here is that voters are served by having as much information as possible. And as expensive as campaigns are, I wouldn't trade it for not getting information. It's hard to go out and raise the money. I'm sure Mr. Pederson doesn't like writing all those checks. But the bottom line is to get information to voters is critical for them to make sound judgments, and I'm glad that we can at least get that done.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. Sheriff, what's your take on this big-money campaign?

Richard Mack:
Well I'm glad that Senator Kyl has finally told the Arizona people to vote for me. [Laughter] Because I'm the only one not spending that money, and I'm definitely not the millionaire. And you know what? I think the way they have spent their money is kind of indicative of how they'll spend money in Washington, D.C. You know, you judge a man by the way he runs his campaign. And also, between the three of us, I am the only one who has not spent money on television and radio ads attacking my opponents. Primarily because I don't have any money, but I still haven't done it.

Bill Buckmaster:
All right. We are less than a minute to go before the closing statements, but we're coming back to -- for Mr. Pederson with the rebuttal on this question before we have the closing statements.

Jim Pederson:
Well, Mr. Kyl made representation it was 14,000 contributors. How many of those are from Arizona? You know, I have 7000 contributors, the majority of which are from Arizona. But if you want to talk about money, how about the five and a half million dollars that Mr. Kyl has received from Washington-based political action committees? What about the hundreds of thousands of dollars that he's received from the oil companies, from the pharmaceutical companies, from the tobacco companies? I don't think any of those companies really have a major presence in Arizona. What's that about solving the problems of Arizona? People know where my money's coming from. You know, I'd like a detailed explanation from Senator Kyl as to where his money is coming from.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. Gentlemen, we are at that time now for your closing statements. We have carved out two minutes for each of you here at the end of the forum. And we began with Senator Kyl so on this round here at the close, we'll begin with Mr. Pederson, go around the table for your closing statement.

Jim Pederson:
Thank you, Bill. And thank you, Ann. It was a pleasure. Ladies and gentlemen, my fellow Arizonans, this campaign is about change versus the status quo. It's about the people of Arizona versus special interests. It's about results. Results. That's what I go by. Results versus tough talk. My vision is about fixing things. As I said before, I've proven throughout my career that I'm pretty good at fixing things. We've got a lot of things that are broken in Arizona. And that's what I'm going to do when I go back to Washington. I'm going to work for the people of Arizona. Once upon a time, our representatives did that. They didn't get involved in the culture and the environment of Washington. They worked on specific problems that you face every day. And that's not happening anymore. Instead our representatives work on the problems of special interests. They work on the problems of lobbyists. Senator Kyl has done a pretty good job tonight of explaining to you why I don't need this job for the money, and he's right. I don't. And I don't need it for an ego stroke. You know, Roberta and I have been to plenty of cocktail parties. We don't need to go to anymore. Why don't we go back there, roll up our sleeves, and get to work for you? That's the principle that I've been guided by all my life. Let's fix our immigration problem. Let's fix our schools. Let's fix our health care system. Let's get that bottom-line result that I've been used to getting all my life that maybe the people back in Washington really don't understand because they don't recognize it. They don't talk to you. I've been spending a lot of time talking to you during the past year. Well, really all my life. I think I know, and I think I know how to provide the answers. Thank you so much.

Bill Buckmaster:
Thank you, Mr. Pederson. As we go now around the table, we will have Sheriff Mack with the final two minutes.

Richard Mack:
Well thank you, Bill and Ann, and I really want to reiterate that I appreciate KUAT for standing for the proper principles of freedom of the press and my personal freedom of speech. You know, 230 years ago, our founding fathers brought us a country based on individual liberty, limited government, and very little taxation. They did this as a result of the tyranny from the British crown based on over taxation and just way too much government regulation and oppression. You know, my favorite show was "Braveheart", and at one point Robert the Bruce repents for having betrayed William Wallace, and he's talking to his father, and he says, I want to believe. I want to believe as he does,' talking about William Wallace. Well, now I'm asking you to believe. Even you die-hard partisan republicans and democrats. You might even have a sign for one of my opponents. I'm asking you this question. How corrupt and scandalous does Washington, D.C. have to get before you say enough is enough and you vote for someone else? Do you really believe that voting for another democrat or republican is going to solve anything? You don't think it's time to go somewhere else yet? How bad does it have to get before you say, I'm leaving because the party left me and left American fundamentalism? That's what this election is about. It's about freedom and liberty. And I'm asking you to consider me the alternative.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. And the final two minutes tonight, Senator Kyl.

Jon Kyl:
Bill and Ann, thank you very much, and I thank both Richard and Jim as well for the spirited discussion. Carol and I met each other here at the University of Arizona, shall we say a long time ago. Both of us got our degrees here. She put me through law school as a registered nurse working over at St. Joseph's Hospital. Our daughter was born in Tucson. We've got two grandkids here now, and we always appreciate coming to Tucson to visit with folks here. I want to say that as I've traveled around the state, and it's no different in Phoenix or other parts of the state as it is here in Tucson, folks are concerned about their future. They realize that the economy is good right now, but there's always the question about tomorrow, and security is a critical issue for everyone. And I think, especially in these serious times when clearly we are challenged as we haven't been for a long time with these security concerns both on our border and with the war against the terrorists, folks turn to leaders who are knowledgeable, who are experienced, who have worked with others to get things done and have produced results. In my position as chairman of the terrorism subcommittee and helping to write many of the provisions of the laws that we are now using to be more safe, my work on victims' rights against sexual predators and other areas in which I have provided protection, I've tried to focus on those areas because I know it's of such great concern. So I've provided that experience, and I believe that that experience and that knowledge commends me for your vote, and I'm asking for your vote here this evening. You've got to be able to work together with other people to get things done. Working with John McCain, I think we've provided the kind of leadership that I've talked about here this evening. And so as we think about whether our vote is going to count or not and therefore which of the candidates to vote for, I get back to the point I made in the beginning. This race will be between Mr. Pederson and myself, and I'm asking for your support to continue to work for you as your U.S. Senator.

Bill Buckmaster:
Thank you very much, senator. Thank you, gentlemen. That concludes our Election 2006 forum with the three candidates for the U.S. Senate. This forum, along with all of our election 2006 political coverage, is available for your viewing anytime at kuat.org. I'm Bill Buckmaster. On behalf of Ann Brown of the "Arizona Daily Star" and all of the candidates with us tonight, thank you very much for watching. Good night.

U.S. Senate Debate


  • KUAT's Election 2006 Senate Candidates Forum with candidates Jon Kyl, Richard Mack, and Jim Pederson.
Guests:
  • Dr. Michael Crow - President, Arizona State University
  • Lynda Lovejoy - Presidential candidate, Navajo Nation
  • Senator Jon Kyl - republican incumbent and candidate for U.S. Senate
Category: Elections

View Transcript
Michael Grant:
Tonight on Horizon, a new school will open up soon at ASU that's the first of its kind in the world, a school of sustainability. We'll talk to ASU President Michael Crow about that. Plus, the second of two interviews with candidates for president of the Navajo Nation. Tonight, we hear from challenger Lynda Lovejoy. That's next, on Horizon.

Announcer:
Horizon is made possible by the contributions from the friends of 8. Members of your Arizona PBS Station. Thank you.

Michael Grant:
Good evening and welcome to Horizon. I'm Michael Grant. It's the first of its kind in the world. Arizona State University's School of Sustainability. The school will open in January, and will offer undergraduate, graduate and doctoral degrees in sustainability, with different colleges within the university providing course work and research. The goal of the school is to find solutions to some of the most pressing issues of sustainability faced on the planet. Here now to talk about the School of Sustainability is ASU President Dr. Michael Crow. Dr. Crow, it's good to see you again.

Michael Crow:
Happy to be here.

Michael Grant:
My logical first question is what the heck is sustainability?

Michael Crow:
It's one of those words that I think is evolving. What it means for us is today, in fact, the census bureau announced that the nation reached 300 million people. Think of this as the technical interdisciplinary field as we go from 300 million people to 450 million people, that as we reach that the planet will be stressing less while we grow. So sustainability is the focused study how to grow and prosper while reducing the stress on the planet.

Michael Grant:
Microcosmically, it's like how do you move from 6 million or so people in Arizona to what's the latest? 15 million?

Michael Crow:
14 in 2040. How do you get to 14 million people in Arizona? 8 million or 9 million people in the Maricopa County and have elimination of the brown cloud, elimination of ozone, reduction in nighttime heat increases, the index at night, the return of bird species throughout the metropolitan area.

Michael Grant:
Reduced road rage.

Michael Crow:
That's more difficult. That's more complicated.

Michael Grant:
Seriously.

Michael Crow:
Reductions in travel.

Michael Grant:
Reductions in travel, I would think obviously it would have planning aspects to it.

Michael Crow:
Yeah.

Michael Grant: And those kinds of things.

Michael Crow:
Yeah, so sustainability is integration of social science, physical science, natural science, engineering, planning all of the disciplines coming together to plot the course or provide options. What are our best decision alternatives relative to water, energy and environment while providing for growth? In the past when I was an environmental studies student in the '70s, it was a how to block industry, how to slow down corporations and reduce growth. All that means is keep the people at the bottom of the ladder still at the bottom of the ladder. How do you develop it for economic stability and sustainability?

Michael Grant:
How did it come about?

Michael Crow:
It has been evolving for 15 years. When we become aware that the stresses on the planet are drastic and what we're seeing as population increases the stress increase global warming, water issues, pollution issues, lifestyle issues, quality of life issues, and so it's been an awareness that we're not addressing these things in a significant way.

Michael Grant:
First of kind in the world. Rest of world hasn't caught on? We're brighter than they are?

Michael Crow:
Not brighter just more nimble. The chemists will say we don't want to do that or the geologist says they don't want to work on it or the economist says we'll stay with ourselves. Here at ASU, we have intellectual agility. We had a meeting in New Mexico three years ago with leading Harvard scientists from New Mexico, Europe and all other and they helped us to design and outline how to evolve this school. They told us when we were done with the three-day retreat, they said we need to do it and get it right because it's time for this kind of thing to come around.

Michael Grant:
You mentioned the multiple disciplines involved. Will the school itself be in one location?

Michael Crow:
The school is part of our Global Institute of Sustainability. It will draw from disciplines throughout the university. It will have a central location where the faculty--where the core faculty can hangout and beyond that it will draw from the faculty from the rest of the university.

Michael Grant:
You have a wide panoply of disciplines here and issues and those kinds of things, I would think it would be a challenge designing a curriculum sort of figuring out where do you start first? And finish up with?

Michael Crow:
It's very challenging. There's core subjects that everybody will take and specialization that certain folks will take and some will take a social science angle and some will take a natural science angle and some a planning angle and each need a course of principles and theories and tools and so the school will provide those and also provide opportunity for everyone to approach the sustainability questions from all of those various prospectives.

Michael Grant:
What degree do you get? Do you get a bachelors?

Michael Crow:
BS in Sustainability, MS in Sustainability, PhD in Sustainability. You may also get a double major in chemistry. The degree itself will be in sustainability.

Michael Grant:
How many students?

Michael Crow:
It will start out with a few hundred undergraduates and we think it will be major for undergraduates and low hundreds of master's student and several scores of PhD students.

Michael Grant:
There is obviously a strong international element to this. Do you see it being an international magnet for students similarly interested elsewhere?

Michael Crow:
Yeah. We think it's a big deal in Arizona and will attract students and support from around the world. We launched the joint center for sustainability for Urban Academy of Sciences in China. We have multi-locations around the country and world already. This new school will help us to attract students from all over.

Michael Grant:
What about the research angle?

Michael Crow:
The research interestingly will be both local and global. So we already have Maricopa County instrumented. We are already working on the brown cloud problem and ecological problems related to a big city in the sonoran desert and extrapolate what we learn here from other environments and other places and you learn best by sustainability questions by focusing on local complexity and growing out from there and bringing it back together.

Michael Grant:
In fact, I seem to recall there are a couple of those sorts of research efforts underway right now.

Michael Crow:
We run right now the long-term ecological research facility for National Science Foundation focused on urban environments. We run right now Decision Center for Desert City which is funded by the National Science Foundation and biocomplexity issues and a lot of decision making in sustainability and environmental complexity and we are building on that base and have funding and extrapolating from where we are from this new school.

Michael Grant:
Speaking of funding, how does it get funded?

Michael Crow:
We have a planning gift from Julie Ann Rigley of $15 million and investing new faculty lines from the university and securing major, major investments from Washington in particular.

Michael Grant:
The Sustainability School, have you established bench marks for it at this point in time.

Michael Crow:
In terms of size, it's a modestly-sized school. In terms of impact, we want it to be a leading place for solutions for large-scale complex issues of sustainability. For instance, in planning metropolitan Phoenix, we want to see the nighttime heat index reduced. So right now the nighttime temperature has gone up in Phoenix by more than 10 degrees in the last 20 years. It's costly from an energy perspective and costly from a living perspective and an environmental perspective and costly on a water use perspective. We will find it based on the knowledge and problems we involve in our backyard.

Michael Grant:
We don't focus on this very much but it really is an interesting exercise in the interrelationships that exist among all of this and in how many different disciplines they involve.

Michael Crow:
Right. You have to imagine the fingers on my hand are the individual disciplines. Two hands are ranges of types of disciplines let's say the social and natural sciences. All of the problems of sustainability requires coupling of these. Not one major problem of sustainability can be solved by one or two disciplines only the coupling of disciplines. We had to grow up and mature as an intellectual enterprise to realize that and understand that. This school and institute are the means to do that.

Michael Grant:
All right. ASU President Dr. Michael Crow sounds like a fascinating idea. Thank you very much.

Michael Crow:
Glad to be here.

Michael Grant:
Next month Navajo voters will go to the polls to elect a president. The Navajo Nation extends across Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of Utah. The size of the area presents unique challenges and the Navajo Government has been described as the largest and most sophisticated form of Native-American Government. Issues that affect the Navajo Nation range from casino rights to the trade pact with Cuba to education. Tonight we talk to challenger Lynda Lovejoy. Lovejoy has had extensive public service experience, including serving in the New Mexico State Legislature for ten years. She received a Bachelor's in Public Administration at Northern Arizona University. Larry Lemmons spoke with Lynda Lovejoy about the issues.

Larry Lemmons:
Let start with an easy question. Why do you want to be president of the Navajo Nation?

Lynda Lovejoy:
I feel I can make a difference, a difference with integrity, with professionalism, with the energy and commitment to get things done for the people and I believe that I can do more than what is being done now. We are really in a stagnant condition more than ever before and I believe that I can come in and get results, be result oriented and be really looked into major--try to be--try to resolve major matters that are confronting our Navajo Nation government and one that I don't really see happening today. We have problems with lack of economic development. We need better--we need to better our standards in education. We need to pay attention to bettering the quality of life for our people, and we need to truly create jobs for our people. Our unemployment is at its highest level and we need to create jobs. We need to open up more doors that are closed now. We need to bring about and tap into many opportunities that are not being tapped into currently.

Larry Lemmons:
What's your opinion of the recent decision to allow gaming in the Navajo Nation?

Lynda Lovejoy:
Well, that was done--that is a real problematic situation for the Navajo people. The referendum was brought to the people twice, both times it was voted down. And our leaders manipulated the question so that no meant yes and yes meant no and that was a very confusing part. When it came time to voting, those who were opposed to gaming voted no when it meant yes and vice versa. And that was a real manipulation that was done to our people and--but now that it's legal--because of that manipulation, it is legal now and other doors have been opened to establish casinos. And just yesterday, Tuesday, the council voted to establish the gaming commission as--to operate like a private enterprise and I truly don't believe that's going to work. It's not going to benefit the Navajo people. The moneys are not going to come to the Navajo people as it is being articulated. It's not going to happen because this commission is going to become a--an enterprise in itself that's not being to benefit the Navajo people. However it got approved and we have to deal with it the best way we know how to make sure there's going to be accountability and revenue stream to help the Navajo Nation as a government and people.

Larry Lemmons:
What can you tell me about the trade pack with Cuba?

Lynda Lovejoy:
In as much as I support Navajo Nation looking for global networking and global economic opportunities, the trade agreement was--is still unknown by many Navajo people. I don't know when the trade agreement act was approved and whether the council approved it or whether the president himself approved that. It is not a well-known trade agreement that was acted upon. I still believe that there's a great deal of things that can be done at home by NAPI, Navajo Agriculture Products Industry, helping Navajos in times of emergencies, drought, extreme climate weather season and these are things that are still not--plans are still not in place to do things like this by NAPI. However they reached out to Cuba for trade agreement to sell. And as I said, in as much as I support going global, I'm hoping that we can--we can go back in and discuss some of these issues and truly make the trade agreement known to the people and what its intent and purpose is.

Larry Lemmons:
Are you the first woman to run for president of the Navajo Nation?

Lynda Lovejoy:
I'm not the first.

Larry Lemmons:
You're not the first?

Lynda Lovejoy:
I'm not the first woman to run. I'm the first to win the primary election.

Larry Lemmons:
How does it feel to be in that position?

Lynda Lovejoy:
It certainly is overwhelming and everyone was surprised about my win except myself of course because I know how to count. But truly as I am proud of it and I hope to be a role model to the younger women that are coming up the ladder and--but I still--I still believe that I'm running based on my qualifications and not based on my gender.

Larry Lemmons:
You are obviously not happy with the present administration. Is that the reason why you chose to run or was there some other reason?

Lynda Lovejoy:
Absolutely. If I was--first of all, I don't ever run against incumbents. I have never done that and respectfully I truly don't think it's a good idea to run against someone an incumbent rather if he or she is doing a good job. In this case, our current president is not doing a good job. As I said, he's not a decision maker. He relies too much on other people's ideas and decisions and he's been--I believe that he's listening to people who are misguiding him. There's a lot of missteps, miscommunication, a misguide and that's detrimental to our Navajo people and that's what has caused us to become a regressive nation rather than progressing and moving forward and tapping into economic and better educational opportunities for our people.

Larry Lemmons:
You had mentioned economic development, education, quality of life. If you are elected, what would you do towards those problems in the first 100 days?

Lynda Lovejoy:
First of all, we hope to submit some legislation that will support--that will remove barriers to support our small businesses, Navajo-owned businesses. We hope to submit legislation that needs dire modification to remove barriers and make streamline processes. We hope to--we hope to submit legislation that will make veterans a separate entity or a separate division that has been problematic for many, many years. And we hope to really examine our tribal enterprise and make their mission complement the Navajo Nation's goals. We want to reexamine many programs that are not being managed well and effectively and efficiently. Those are things we want to move fast on and get results, set some goals and achieve results. We want to have a little bit more hands-on to make sure that our workers are treated fairly. We want to establish wages that are fair. We would like to--and again, we want to move quickly on how we can look at some energy development; that is, looking at alternative forms such as renewables. Those are things we want to do and many, many more. We just know it's going to take time but the major or foremost interest as well is looking at our governments. We have a dysfunctional government. And we have a government that is not responsive to the needs of the people. We have a government that has its doors closed to the people. It is not involving our people. It is not allowing our grass roots people to have a voice in our government. And we want to look at immediate ways to put out front that we want a democratic process in our government. We want the people to have the right to voice their ideas and their opinions and in our government. And then secondly, we want to really truly establish a healthy working relationship with our own tribal leaders, our council delegates, and our chapter officials. And we want to immediately focus on getting the business done for the people which is not--which is not there now.

Larry Lemmons:
Thank you, Lynda Lovejoy for visiting us today.

Lynda Lovejoy:
Thank you.

Michael Grant:
If you're confused about the upcoming election. Horizon's "Vote 2006" web site can help. You can get to the web site at www.azpbs.org. Here are more details.

Mike Sauceda:
To get to the Arizona vote 2006 website, go to the 8 website at azpbs.org. Once you're there, click on vote 2006. That will take you to our Horizon Vote 2006 homepage which is loaded with features to help you prepare to cast your ballot. One of the most prominent features is top videos. With this feature you can view past Horizon election shows. The five tabs on the upper part of the screen allow you to access all the information you need on the propositions, state-wide races, the U.S. senate race, congressional races and clean elections debates. For example, if you click on the proposition tab, you'll get a list of propositions that will appear on the November ballot. Click on one of the propositions such as prop 100, and you'll get links to the text of the proposed amendment, analyses by the legislative council, arguments for and against and town halls on the measure. On the Arizona vote 2006 website you can access on line videos, RSS feeds, podcasts and the Cronkite 8 Poll. A couple of other features to checkout is my ballot. A printable form to remind you of your choices as you vote and you can check out when to watch Horizon election coverage.

Michael Grant:
Thank you very much for joining us this evening. And of course on our Friday edition we will have the usual reporter round table where we will cover the week's news and political developments. Thanks again for joining us. I'm Michael Grant. Have a great one. Good night.



We now present the U.S. Senate debate, a Horizon special presentation.

Announcer:
Welcome to KUAT's Election 2006 Senate Candidates Forum with candidates Jon Kyl, Richard Mack, and Jim Pederson. And now from the studios of KUAT television, it's your moderator, Bill Buckmaster.

Bill Buckmaster:
Good evening everybody. Welcome to our election 2006 political forum series presented by the KUAT Communications Group and Cox Communications. Joining me to question the three U.S. Senate candidates is Ann Brown, editorial page editor of the "Arizona Daily Star". Now let's meet the candidates. Republican Jon Kyl is seeking a third six-year term to the U.S. Senate. Prior to his Senate service, Mr. Kyl served four terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. Democrat Jim Pederson is a Phoenix businessman who has developed more than two dozen shopping centers around Arizona. He's the former state chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party. And libertarian Richard Mack is the former sheriff of Graham County. In the 1990's, Sheriff Mack successfully challenged the Brady Bill, arguing it was unconstitutional to require local police to conduct background checks on potential gun buyers. Now a word about our ground rules for tonight's forum. Each candidate will have a two-minute opening statement. In order to cover as much ground as possible, we are asking the candidates to limit their responses to no more than a minute and a half. Now, there will be a second or a 45-second rebuttal opportunity for the candidate to whom the question was originally asked. We may have to alter these time limits somewhat near the end of our forum so each candidate will have two minutes for their closing remarks. So we begin now with each candidate's opening statement. Senator Kyl, you're up first.

Jon Kyl:
Thank you. It's been an honor and pleasure for me to represent you in the United States Senate. Carol and I have so many friends, and we thank you for your support. This race presents a clear choice between Jim Pederson and myself. You know my record. You know what I stand for. For example, the recent historic Arizona water settlement which brought over 8,000 acre feet of new CAP water to Tucson. We know from my opponent's criticism of me what he stands for. He has chosen to criticize 200 of my votes. And if he were in the Senate voting the other way, we know that he would vote with John Kerry and John Kennedy 96\% of the time, with John McCain only 22\% of the time. Mr. Pederson talks about a new direction, but I suggest that's the wrong direction for Arizona. Look at just three issues: judges, immigration, and terrorism. He's running an ad right now that criticizes me for voting to confirm Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Alito to the United States Supreme Court, which shows just how far out of the mainstream he is. On immigration, perhaps today he can explain his flip-flop on the border fence. He'd explain why he believes that illegal immigrants should get U.S. citizenship and why he opposed voter ID at the polls. On the important issue of terrorism, perhaps today he can explain why-- how he can not only leave, but how he would recommend winning these wars against terrorists. I think the voters of Arizona deserve knowledgeable and experienced leadership. The writer for the "Arizona Daily Star" said with respect to Mr. Pederson's position on the Iraq war that, that with Mr. Pederson's vision, victory is nowhere in sight. John McCain and I have worked together to provide experienced leadership for Arizona you can trust. I want to thank KUAT for the opportunity to discuss these and many other issues today. Thank you.

Bill Buckmaster:
All right. Thank you, Senator. Sheriff Mack?

Richard Mack:
Well, thanks. My name is Richard Mack, and I approve this debate. [Laughter] As a matter of fact, I'm really grateful to be here. I don't always get invited. And I think it's kind of astonishing that I don't get invited to all of them and even more astonishing that Senator Kyl has refused to debate if I attend the debates. And I think that the democratic process should include everybody that's on the ballot. There's only three of us, and I believe I bring a lot to the table here. I am a former police officer, a former sheriff, and a former teacher. And while I was serving as sheriff in Graham County, I did sue the Clinton administration to stop the federal intervention that was part of the Brady Bill. And it was an extreme intrusion by the federal government and the Clinton administration. So, yes, I did sue the bill Clinton administration. And you might say that I was the only person in history that ever sued Bill Clinton on a nonsexual matter. I did learn a lot, though, through this political process, and I studied what made America great, and I found out that the founding fathers established this country based on self-rule, limited government, and basically this principle: that they would teach and stand for correct principles and allow the people to govern themselves. This does not exist today. It really doesn't matter who's in charge: Republicans or Democrats. Government gets bigger, more onerous, and the deficit gets gigantic, just like it is today. Since Ronald Reagan left office and during the 20 years that Senator Kyl has been in Washington, D.C., the federal budget has gone up 550\%. This cannot continue. It cannot be sustained. I offer myself as an alternative. That's Richard Mack for U.S. Senate. Thanks.

Bill Buckmaster:
Thank you, sheriff. And now Mr. Pederson.

Jim Pederson:
Thank you, Bill. Thank you, Ann. And thanks to KUAT for providing us this opportunity. It's always good to come on the University of Arizona campus. I spent quite a few years here getting two degrees, and this campaign has really provided me with a chance to meet so many people, ex-schoolmates that I went to U of A with, Casa Grande high school, people that I did business deals with a long, long time ago. And getting reacquainted and making new friends have certainly been a privilege for me over the past year. Our approach to the issues is a product of our life experience. I spent the last 30 years in business, so I guess that influences how I look at things. Sometimes, when you take over an existing business or project, things are so messed up that you really have to come in and make a complete change, change of personnel, and start over. Folks, I think that's where we are today. The mess in Iraq, our broken borders we can't seem to fix, no-bid contracts, unfair tax policies that disproportionately affect the middle class, corruption and immoral behavior at the highest levels. And the most important thing: an administration that doesn't seem to know how to keep us safe. It's time to start over. It's time to clean house. It's time to replace the personnel that should be responsible for finding solutions. Now, I've proven in my career that I'm pretty good at fixing things. Washington's broken. It's time to fix it. Remember, you can't change Washington until you change the people you send there. Thank you.

Bill Buckmaster:
Thank you, Mr. Pederson. Ann Brown is going to begin the questioning for us tonight.

Ann Brown:
And Sheriff Mack, you're going to be the first to answer this question. It looks as though there will be a 700-mile fence along the border. Now what would you like to do to address the illegal immigration problem? And please be specific in both terms of plans and procedures.

Richard Mack:
This is right up my alley. First of all, my degree is in Latin American studies. I speak fluent Spanish and have been in southern Arizona about 35 years. And, first of all, I would really like to see some diplomacy reaching out to the new president of Mexico. Clinton and Bush really failed in this regard to play patty cake with President Fox, and they should have taken a much tougher stand and had him get more involved in helping us instead of promoting illegal immigration. I really have to question a 700-mile fence. That border is 2000 miles long. I support strict enforcement at the border. We have to. We cannot pretend to have a war on terrorism and have such a poor, unsecure border, especially on the Mexico border. We know for a fact that terrorists have gotten through, and this has been -- the blame falls directly on the democrats and republicans that have been in office who have failed to enforce our immigration laws. We don't need another immigration law. We need to enforce the laws that are there. I don't blame the poor people from Mexico for wanting to come here, but we cannot take all the poor from Mexico and provide for them here in the United States. We have got to be tougher and stretch that fence.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Mr. Pederson, be specific with plans and procedures.

Jim Pederson:
Let's be specific with plans and procedures. The other night, Ann, on our Phoenix debate, I strongly recommended to Senator Kyl that he go arm and arm to the House of Representatives and try to sell his colleagues in the house on the plan to pass that Senate. That was a pretty good bill, contained strong border enforcement, additional border patrol agents backed up by the resources and technology they desperately need. It called for a practical way to deal with the undocumented people that are already here. It called for a great guest worker program that works. It's like the program that I experienced when I was growing up in Casa Grande. People came across that border, they worked, and they went back. But there's a partisan divide in Washington today. That's why we're not seeing true immigration reform. A fence? Sure, it will help. But if we think just a fence is going to solve our immigration problem, we've got another think coming. Jon Kyl voted against that bill, Ann. He voted against-- well, the congressional office estimated there would be $8 billion provided to enforce the provisions of that agreement. He voted against that. You know, the taxpayers in this state should be outraged. Here we are, we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars of Arizona's taxpayers' money to enforce what should be a federal issue. Our hospitals, our schools, our jails, our law enforcement -- we've got to bring this within the framework of the law. My opponent really doesn't have a good plan. It's bound up in political rhetoric. He's been back there for 20 years. Nothing's been done. Where are the results?

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Senator Kyl, and be specific.

Jon Kyl:
I will be specific. I have a bill which was introduced that has four key elements to it. It's comprehensive immigration reform. It starts with securing the border, including building fencing, more roads, more border patrol, more detention spaces, sensors, everything we need to bring the border under control, more law enforcement at the interior of the country, including at the workplace. We've got to have an electronic verification of employment to ensure that nobody that's not authorized to work is employed in the country. We need, third, to do something about the people who are here illegally today, at least 12 million illegal immigrants. And finally, we need a temporary worker program in this country. If you go to Yuma, for example, today, you'll find that we're going to have difficulty bringing in the lettuce crop unless there's some kind of ability for people to work there, and that means, in my view, work here temporarily. As Mr. Pederson just said, the way the law used to be, you got a visa to be here temporarily. When the work was done, you went home and then came back when the work was here again. Under the bill he supports, the bill I voted against, once those temporary workers are here, they can immediately petition to be here permanently and then become U.S. citizens. The question I asked in my opening statement was why should a temporary worker be automatically put on a path to citizenship when the jobs aren't here anymore? Building houses, for example, we need workers right now. But sometime in the future, those jobs are not going to be here. And does it make sense for us to convert those temporary workers into permanent workers and U.S. citizens or have them return home, to come back when there's work available for them again?

Ann Brown:
Thank you. And Sheriff Mack, you have a 45-second rebuttal?

Richard Mack:
Well, neither Mr. Kyl or Mr. Pederson addressed one key issue in this entire immigration debate, and that is the reasons that the Mexican poverty-stricken people come here in the first place. They know darn well that they're going to get a bunch of freebies from our socialistic government here. And we have got to stop that. We cannot pay people who come here illegally with taxpayer dollars and give them all these benefits for free. That must stop, and we must publicize that on the other side of the border, south of the Rio Grande.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. Thank you. Our next question is to Mr. Pederson. Is America safer today than we were before September 11, 2001?

Jim Pederson:
No, we're not, Bill. There was a national intelligence estimate that came out a couple of weeks ago. This is a compilation of estimates by all of the intelligence agencies of the federal government. It mainly concluded that because of our activities in Iraq that America is not safer, that we have not made progress in the war on terror, that we're not going after the terrorists where they are. If we're going to go after terrorism, let's do it in a practical, honest, and common sense way. Let's go after the terrorists where they are. Let's reassert our leadership position in the world, a position that we've lost. Let's rebuild our military, currently 100,000 troops short. Let's not come back to cut back on homeland security funding. All of these kinds of things, if they were combined together, would provide for the safety and security of the United States. But on each one of these issues, our government, rubber stamped by Senator Kyl, has a failing grade.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. Thank you. Senator?

Jon Kyl:
I would argue that we are safer today. Remember that the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. couldn't even talk to each other before 9/11. After 9/11, we understood that there were changes that had to be made primarily in our intelligence-gathering operations as well as laws that prohibited us from doing certain things. The PATRIOT Act resulted from that. The Tools to Fight Terrorism Act, I helped to write both of those bills. Another bill I wrote, called the Moussaoui Fix, to solved the problem that existed when we couldn't get into Zacarias Moussaoui's computer before 9/11, even though we suspected that he had something to do with terrorists. So I think that we've created laws to make things better. And we've gone after terrorists. We have broken up a wide variety of potential attacks, including recently in Great Britain, and probably over 100 attacks in other places of the world. Remember, before 9/11, we had been attacked four times: the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole, our troops in Cobart Towers, the American Embassies in the African countries. So it's clear that the terrorists are going to fight us and they're going to try to find the creases where we are weakest. We've got to continue to do everything we can to protect our homeland but appreciate the fact that, in this war, our best ability to win is to go after them where they are, to be on the offense. And that means having a very robust intelligence capability. And we've created, as I said, the mechanism to be able to do that in the future. So I would argue that we indeed in the homeland here are safer than we were five years ago.

Bill Buckmaster:
And what do you think, Sheriff Mack?

Richard Mack:
Absolutely not. We are not safer, and we are not more secure, and our position in the world has been lessened. And furthermore we're less free. And part of that is due entirely to the unconstitutional PATRIOT Act that Senator Kyl helped author. It doesn't take a first grade student to know and understand that the onerous provisions in the PATRIOT Act are unconstitutional. And Senator Kyl calls them tough laws. I call them unconstitutional. And to surrender some of our freedoms that Benjamin Franklin warned us not to do, to surrender freedom for security, is wrong. And just about everything that the founding fathers warned us not to do, we're doing it today, all in the name of fighting terrorism or providing for this compassionate conservativism made up by George Bush. The PATRIOT Act is one of the reasons why I say what's worse? The attacks on our country or the attacks on our liberty? And I thought we were supposed to be defending liberty. And the people we put into office should be doing that, not writing unconstitutional laws.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. And the rebuttal now, Mr. Pederson.

Jim Pederson:
Senator Kyl, where are the results? You certainly have reassuring tones, but where is the evidence? Where is the evidence that the United States is safer? Where is the evidence of our progress in Iraq? Where is the evidence of our progress in fighting terror worldwide? Where is the evidence that we're uniting the world community to proceed on the war on terror? Where is this evidence? Where are the results? We don't need tough talk. We don't need reassuring terms. We need somebody to roll up their sleeves and get to work.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Senator Kyl, this question will start with you. I'd like you to discuss the situation in Iraq and whether the U.S. should issue a formal timetable for withdrawal of forces.

Jon Kyl:
No, we shouldn't. And that's the consensus of our military leaders there. To do that would simply tell our enemy exactly what they have to do in order to prevail. To wait until we leave, chaos would result. That country would implode. The countries around it, I think, would begin to move away from the position that they've had in the past, which is to support countries like: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, other countries. After 9/11, especially after we went into Afghanistan -- and they understood we were serious, we were going to win the war against these terrorists -- they began to work with us. As a matter of fact the Pakistanis have helped catch over half of the terrorists that have been apprehended worldwide. I believe they would begin to hedge their bets, because all of them live in a very dangerous neighborhood there, and they all have terrorist potential within their own countries. As a result, were we to leave Iraq, not only would that country implode and an awful lot of people I think die, particularly those who supported the government and who were on our side, but you'd find that the support that we're getting to fight the terrorists around that area would also begin to fade as those countries began to hedge their bets with others, and that result would be that the United States would be less able to win the war. The problem in Iraq is that it is a battle in the overall war worldwide, and you don't win the worldwide war by pulling out of the central battle. And that's what Osama Bin Laden calls it. In fact, Bin Laden calls Baghdad the capitol of his new caliphate. That's a central battle and we can't back out of.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Sheriff Mack.

Richard Mack:
Well, I really am sorry that we ever went to Iraq. I'm the only candidate in this that never supported the war. I'm against war. I'm against killing. We should not have done this. I believe in a strong national defense. I'm all for that. But that wasn't what this war was about. First we got -- we must remember that we went there based on faulty intelligence. Even the White House admits that. It was faulty intelligence. There's been accusations a lot stronger than that, but I'll just leave it at that. And the pretense seems to be that, as long as we're in Iraq, we're keeping all the terrorists there, and we're keeping them occupied because that's where they are. That is bull. If we had been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as we are now -- and right now we have caused a much worse problem than existed at the time we went there. But if we were fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq at the time 9/11 occurred, 9/11 would have still happened. These people don't stop because we're right there in Iraq and they wouldn't have stopped. And this happened because of faulty intelligence and faulty preparation and because we have not done the right things with middle eastern foreign policy. I have two words to say about failed policy in the Middle East. Iraq.

Ann Brown:
Mr. Pederson.

Jim Pederson:
Well Richard, you're 100\% right. We got into Iraq for the wrong reasons, but we're there. I'm not for a unilateral pullout by any means. But I am in favor of a more intelligent way of prosecuting this war. Above all, I'm in favor of getting our young men and women off the streets of Baghdad. That's where they're being killed. They're being killed by the car bombs, the roadside bombs, the suicide bombs. Get them into forward-operating bases. Could be in Iraq. Fully respond to the threat of safety and security of the United States. Mr. Kyl, you mentioned Afghanistan. I don't see how in the world you can hold that example up as any kind of a success. The Taliban is growing. Al-Qaeda is growing. Terrorist networks, the poppy fields that produce heroin that finance much of the war on terror is growing. How in the world can that be an example of a successful United States policy? It's not. And that's a problem. You can't go after the solution to the problem unless you admit the problem. This administration, backed up by Senator Kyl, says there's no problem. That's the biggest problem that I have. They think things are okay the way they are. They want to continue with the status quo. They're looking through rose-colored glasses. They won't admit that a problem exists.

Ann Brown:
Okay. Senator Kyl, rebuttal?

Jon Kyl:
Well, obviously there are huge problems. The president has made it crystal clear that this is difficult. It's long. It's not going to be easy. But I wonder, when Mr. Pederson says that Afghanistan is not an example of success, did he think it was better under the Taliban when little girls couldn't go to school and the religious police were roaming the streets rounding up people for doing the wrong thing, taking people to soccer stadiums and beheading them? That's what this world would look like if these evil doers got their way. They intend to bend us to their will or kill us or die trying, and you've got to go after them where they are. And Afghanistan is a significant example of success, though of course it's not done. The bottom line here is that the United States has got to go after the terrorists where they are. They're in Afghanistan. They're in Iraq. They're in a lot of other places in the world. And as Ronald Reagan said in the Cold War, the strategy is we win; they lose.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay and the next question is for Sheriff Mack. We're on the university of Arizona campus, so it's appropriate we talk a little education here tonight. And I want to talk about the federal "No Child Left Behind" Law that promised educational reform in this country. Has it, Sheriff Mack, lived up to its promise?

Richard Mack:
[Laughter] Another typical example of why you don't want Washington, D.C. politicians running education. A huge failure, huge cost, and one of the reasons why I agree with Ronald Reagan that we should abolish the department of education. He said it first. I don't take credit for it. But I will be the leader in helping Ronald Reagan's promise come to fruition. We should not have the department of education. We should not have our politicians from Washington, D.C. trying to micromanage education out here in Tucson or southern Arizona. We elect school boards for that. We have our parents and teachers association. We can handle it. We promise Washington, D.C. we can handle our own education out here. And we left a lot more children behind. I have lots of friends in education. I've been in education. And there's not one of them that likes it. One here and there administrator says, oh, yeah, but we love this money coming in. Well, why don't you just keep your own money. Quit sending it to Washington, D.C. where it gets wasted, and then we don't have to worry about it. Keep our money here, and keep our education control right here locally. I support Arizona. I know Arizona teachers and parents and school boards can do a better job than Washington, D.C. and "No Child Left Behind" proves it.

Bill Buckmaster:
"No Child Left Behind", Mr. Pederson.

Jim Pederson:
Well, I agree with Richard that it's certainly not fulfilling its promise. What "No Child Left Behind" is -- are a bunch of requirements, a bunch of standards. They're not backed up by research. In my business, when you outline a problem or outline a project, you put the people in charge. You make sure they have the resources available, you make sure they have the leadership, the backup. Then you stand back and watch. And if the project doesn't proceed, then you have another sit-down. Make sure the resources are there, and then make a determination as to what's wrong. The problem with "No Child Left Behind" is that there are no resources, so you've got the cart before the horse. You've got all the requirements, all the standards without the resources to accomplish them. You know, I like to keep it simple. We all know the bad, horrible statistics that we have concerning education in Arizona today. Ranked near the bottom in practically every category. What does that say about our generation? Why don't we do three things: raise teachers' salaries, limit class size, fully fund special education. If we just did those three things, you would see a remarkable improvement in the educational status of our young people.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. Senator Kyl, some of your thoughts on "No Child Left Behind".

Jon Kyl:
Thanks. Well there was a big article in the paper up in Phoenix today about the fact that Arizona ranked 50th out of 50 states in spending. That's an indictment obviously of the state government for not putting more money into the kinds of things that Mr. Pederson was just now talking about. But at the federal government level, I think we've been robust in trying to support education, including in Arizona. Arizona, from the standpoint of federal funding for primary and secondary education, ranks seventh out of the 50 states. We've done a good job for Arizona. As a matter of fact, this year it's $5.1 billion. That's more than half of the budget of the state of Arizona. That's a robust amount of federal education spending to the state. "No Child Left Behind" spending has increased 45\% since 2001. In fact, special education that Jim mentioned has gone up 67\% at the federal level. Now, I don't know the comparable numbers at the state level, and it could be that not enough is being done and more should be done at the state level, but the concept for "No Child Left Behind" was the federal government is not going to continue to just pour money into states without results. And we didn't want to just test to an average. If you met that, then you got the money. The concept was they're after the kids below the average. No child should be left behind. And so federal money would be available for tutoring of those kids, sending them to other schools, more money to their own schools to do a better job. The bottom line: so that every child could perform to their very best and that no child in fact would be left behind. And it is beginning to work.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. And, Sheriff, we'll come back to you. You've got the final few seconds on this subject.

Richard Mack:
Well, this doesn't need very long to wrap up, I don't believe, because it's so obvious this program has not worked. It's been a huge failure. And here Senator Kyl talks about a 45\% increase in money, but results are worse. Just look at Arizona being 50th now. And I think that mark is a typical example of just absolutely get the federal government out of the way. And the feds should not -- the federal government should not be in charge of controlling education dollars, period.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Mr. Pederson, we'll start with you with this next question. A senator is a person who's going to work at a national level, but you're elected by the voters of Arizona. So I'd like to talk with you-- you to talk a little bit about specific programs that you think would help Tucson's economy as well as the rest of the United States.

Jim Pederson:
And I will answer that question. But if you permit just a couple of seconds, I can't permit Senator Kyl's statements to go unchallenged about education. You talk to any educator in this state, he has voted against countless measures that would have provided funds for education in this state. He was responsible for keeping, over the last five years, about $200 million worth of "No Child Left Behind" funds coming into Arizona. Back to your question. Economic stability in Pima County, producing jobs, has been an issue for many, many years. I was doing an administrative internship with the city of Tucson back in the late 60's. It was an issue then. We need to develop jobs in Tucson, in Pima County. I know my own business, I haven't been able to get anything going down here mainly because the average household income is quite a bit lower than the rest of the state, and the rest of the state is really not in that great of shakes either. But to illustrate your point concerning your question, I was talking to the economic development director that's in charge of your overall agency for economic development in Pima County. His agency is responsible for getting a Mexican company to come to Tucson. Provided about 200 jobs, as I recall. He told me that he couldn't even get a letter out of the congressional delegation to help him out. I said, you know, if I were a senator, I'd be on that plane to Mexico City with you to help you out. That is a primary responsibility of any elected official.

Ann Brown: Thank you. Senator Kyl?

Jon Kyl:
Well, the key to economic growth is keeping taxes and regulations as low as possible, and we've seen, since the 2001 and 2003 tax rate cuts, that our business has boomed. Five straight years of economic growth. And this helps all communities. It helps communities like Tucson, it helps other communities in Arizona. As John F. Kennedy said, this rising tide lifts all votes. The difference between Mr. Pederson and me is that he would allow those tax rates to expire, going back up to where they used to be. Now, that would result for the average family, a 58\% increase in taxes. Over $2000 a year for the average family. Think about small businesses. The only way you tax the rich is by raising the top marginal rate from 35\%. Small businesses, about 420,000 of them in Arizona, many in Tucson, pay at that top marginal rate. You hurt them if you do that. Capital gains and dividends rates have been lowered. That's the best way to help business is to keep those rates low. Mr. Pederson would let them go back up to where they were. That doesn't just hurt the businesses. It hurts investors. You know, 80\% of seniors report dividends or capital gains, and many of these are not wealthy people. In fact, almost 40\% of the people with incomes less than $50,000 report capital gains and dividends. So the problem with the idea of raising taxes is it hurts everybody. And the best way - there are many other things we could talk about here - but the best way to keep economic growth moving is to keep regulation and taxes as low as possible.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Sheriff?

Richard Mack:
Well finally I agree with Senator Kyl. We do need to keep regulation and taxes low. Regulation means government out of your life. We need to get government out of this. But it's amazing. And I'm really shocked that my opponents haven't talked about this issue before. If you really want to help Arizona -- and the senator does represent Arizona in Washington, D.C. He is the representative for this state to help this state in every way that he possibly can within the restraints of the constitution. Isn't it amazing, though, that western states are all owned and controlled by the federal government? 85\% of the land of Arizona is federally owned or controlled. 85\%. We're not even Arizona. Why do we call ourselves Arizona? We're an enclave of the federal government. They own our land. We can't even control our own geography and our own land, we're just an enclave of the federal government. I don't want that. That's not acceptable. New Hampshire is 2\% owned by the federal government. 2\%. And we're 85. Something's wrong with that picture. Land is where you have jobs. Land is where you have tax base. Land is where you have your economy. I want our land back, and I will get it back to Arizona.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Rebuttal, Mr. Pederson?

Jim Pederson:
Mr. Kyl has a very myopic view of the economy and what makes business thrive. I'm the business guy. He's a supply-sider. They also call that voodoo economics, trickle down. There's more that business needs than just tax cuts. Senator Kyl, I'm all for tax cuts. I'm just not for debt. But what do I need as a businessman? I need stable neighborhoods, I need good schools, I need infrastructure investment by state, local, and federal government. Above all, I need rising incomes. That's not being done in Arizona right now. Small business needs a reform in the health care system. Small business needs good transportation systems. You know, that's what a U.S. senator should be doing for the state.

Bill Buckmaster:
Thank you so much. Now we'll move on to another question. Of course it's economic-related. Even though, Senator Kyl, the oil prices are down from their historic levels earlier this year, America is still very dependent on foreign oil. Is it time to really increase the drilling in North America?

Jon Kyl:
Yes, it is. As a matter of fact, we have control over our own destiny here. It used to be that we imported only about 35\% of our oil from places like the gulf, now about 60\% to 65\% is imported. And yet we could, by simply moving into areas like the Gulf of Mexico in the deep waters -- I'm talking 10,000 feet down. We could be producing huge new quantities of oil and gas. The Senate and House have each passed a bill to do that. They have to be reconciled in a conference committee, but I strongly support that. There was an area set aside in Alaska specifically for this purpose, which we could also explore for oil and gas and we know it's there. And that would help us reduce this dependence on oil from other sources. There are a lot of other things we could do as well. To the extent that ethanol is now being used as an additive, we could make it a lot cheaper by eliminating the 54 cent tariff that the United States imposes on Brazilian ethanol. Senator Feinstein and I have a bill that would do that. We can reduce the number of these boutique fuel blends. Most of our gas comes from California. A lot of this gas is refined over there. If we could get those blends down to about six, it would substantially reduce the cost. As a matter of fact, in the energy bill, I was able to win an agreement for Arizona and California and Nevada would also get it, that in the hot summer months that we don't have to burn as much ethanol because it costs more, number 1, but our hot climate takes these oxygenates and creates ozones so it's not even good for the environment. So there are a lot of ways we could reduce the cost, but a lot starts right here in our own backyard.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. What do you think, sheriff?

Richard Mack:
Yes. Absolutely we should expand our oil drilling and offer up all sorts of different places: Alaska, Gulf of Mexico, all sorts of places for drilling. But we also need to look at other sources of energy in our country. Solar energy works. There's other places and other things we can do to promote other sources of energy besides just oil, which is a danger to the environment in some areas. But we've got to understand that the environmentalists have had a strangle hold on our government and on our exploration that has cost jobs, and the worst thing that we've allowed to take place is our dependency on the middle east for our oil. And it's one of the reasons that we're stuck in an unprofitable war right now. And we should not allow this to occur. And getting off of that dependency and that addiction will make us a safer country.

Bill Buckmaster:
And, Mr. Pederson, on the energy question?

Jim Pederson:
Senator Kyl, you can't drill your way out of our dependence on foreign oil or our dependence on fossil fuels. You have countless votes supporting the oil and gas industry, tax subsidies, tax credits. You have very few votes, if any, promoting alternative fuels. Again -- and to keep it simple, my analysis -- if you have higher mileage for automobiles -- get them out to 40, 42 miles a gallon like they have in Europe today. That would reduce our dependency on foreign oil by a good 60\%. More efficient buildings, something I know a little bit about, another 20\%. Alternative fuels, another 20\%. I think we could accomplish all of that within 10 to 12 years. You've voted against every one of these measures. You said something the other night at our Phoenix debate that was unbelievable to me. You said that you're really not in favor of higher-mileage cars because that would lessen the weight of these cars, thereby causing more highway deaths. I have never heard that, never heard a rationale for that. I think it indicates that you really haven't put a lot of thought into this because you've been supporting the oil industry in this state, in this country, the richest industry in the entire history of our country.

Bill Buckmaster:
All right. And you get the rebuttal, Senator.

Jon Kyl: Well, supporting the oil industry, I voted against the big energy bill that Jim Pederson would have voted for, and it's the bill that had $65 billion in subsidies for oil companies and $14.5 billion in tax subsidies for oil companies. He would have voted for it. Who would have subsidized the oil companies? On the matter of cafe standards, the sources are not mine. They are officials - for example, national academy of sciences and others have demonstrated that you get better fuel mileage by making the cars a lot lighter. All I said was there's a tradeoff. Understand that if you go to 40 miles a gallon, you're probably looking at 5000 highway fatalities a year as a result of those lighter-weight vehicles. That's a tradeoff that Americans are going to have to deal with. Of course we can't just drill our way, but there are a lot of things that we can do, starting with at least increasing production that we have available to us in the United States.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Sheriff Mack, this question is for you. Condoleezza Rice is in Tokyo today, I believe, drumming up support for the U.N. resolution for sanctions against North Korea. I wondered if you could talk a little bit about how you feel about the new U.N. resolution and also if the United States should engage in talks directly with North Korea.

Richard Mack:
I am in favor of direct talks with North Korea, absolutely. And I don't know why President Bush continues to take positions of antagonism towards some of our enemies. In law enforcement, I was a hostage negotiator. We do negotiate with criminals. We do negotiate with people who cause us problems. Let's negotiate if we can't through diplomacy, get rid of a lot of these dangers and cause peace, for heaven's sakes, I'm much more for that than I am invading countries as we seem to be doing ever since World War II, we've invaded about 18 to 20 different countries. I thought we were the country that would provide the world peace, and we need to set the example with that. And, yes, absolutely diplomacy, negotiation, sit down and talk. I don't care. Get on the phone if you have to, President Bush, but let's take care of this threat. Instead, during this whole North Korea nuclear test and proliferation of nuclear weapons, we have Congress -- what are they doing? Ah. Getting rid of internet gambling. Boy, that really helped. Now, let's get serious about this problem. We must engage China, Japan, and South Korea leadership and have them part of this diplomatic process.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Mr. Pederson?

Jim Pederson:
That's pretty good, Richard. I don't think I need to say any more, but I will. And I recall President Bush's State of the Union address in 2002 where he pledged to the American people that no terrorist nation would ever develop the capability of nuclear weaponry. Well, here we are today. We had a test in North Korea just a few days ago. Here we are today with Iran. It's not a question of "if" concerning nuclear capability. It's a question of "when". And I agree with Richard. Through our cowboy diplomacy, our lone ranger approach, we have alienated the rest of the world. The only reason that North Korea is where it is today is that they have a benefactor: China. They have a back door. We're going to have to take that situation and talk to not only North Korea but talk to China, talk to Russia, talk with all the leading powers of the world. Now, the recent U.N. resolution was encouraging, but we need to push that. We need to push that. This administration has had almost a contempt for the rest of the world, for the rest of the countries of the world, a lack of respect. You can see that in Iraq. And I think that directly relates to our country's inability for these terrorist nations to develop a nuclear weaponry. We've got to stop it. We cannot afford that for our safety and security.

Ann Brown:
Thank you. Senator?

Jon Kyl:
Thanks. I'm not sure it's much of a plan to say that we have to talk to folks in other countries and push that, push that. What does that mean? Both of these gentlemen have agreed essentially with the policy of the administration, which is not to be a lone ranger, not to go it alone but to include all of the countries in the region that should be involved in negotiating with North Korea. China and Russia, South Korea and Japan, as well as the United States. That's what we're trying to do. And it has produced results in the security council since, after the test, even China agreed, for the first time, that it would be willing to impose sanctions on North Korea. That's a first time for them. Obviously our diplomacy is having some effect. Now we know what the direct negotiation did back when the Clinton administration tried that. First thing the North Koreans did was to cheat on the deal. That's how they got their nuclear weapon. So the key is to get the Chinese especially involved in the situation, inspect the cargo coming out of North Korea. We need to do a much more robust inspection of cargo through something called the Proliferation Security Initiative, which now 60 countries have signed up to. And if they will help us inspect cargo as those shipments go into their waters, it will be possible for us, I think, to stop some of the contraband coming out of North Korea. The biggest danger here is the transfer of technology from the North Koreans to other states or to terrorists, and that's the primary thing that we've got to be able to stop through this negotiation and enforcement of the sanctions that the U.N. has now voted for.

Ann Brown:
Okay. A rebuttal, sheriff?

Richard Mack:
Well, I don't know why we pay so much attention to the United Nations. President Bush himself just a couple years ago was calling them irrelevant and, because of their lack of support, the United Nations -- let's be real honest here -- is no friend of the United States. We need to be very careful about our involvement there. Furthermore, I really question president bush's diplomacy. He has refused to talk to Ahmadinejad from Iran. He's refused to talk to the president of North Korea. He keeps acting like that he's on some higher ground. He should negotiate with these people, and let's try to work things out.

Bill Buckmaster: Next question for Mr. Pederson. This is the most expensive campaign in Arizona history. Many are wondering why spend so much money for a job that pays $162,000 a year.

[Laughter]

Jim Pederson:
That's a good question. That's a real good question. You know, Bill, Arizona hasn't had a competitive U.S. Senate race in 25 years, so I don't think that we've really experienced what other states have experienced over the past 15 to 20 years in terms of U.S. Senate races. And it's regrettable. It's regrettable that we have to spend so much money in communicating what we believe in to the public. But unfortunately it's a fact of life. Now, I'm very pleased that we have the opportunity to provide a competitive race this year. You know, issues get on the table. They're discussed, and they're debated. If you have one side with an overwhelming supply of resources, either through the power of the incumbency or perhaps the district which makes it safe, you don't get that discussion. We're having that discussion this year, first time in a long, long time. You're seeing contrast between two people of entirely different visions, of entirely different backgrounds, and the people of Arizona are going to choose. I'm presenting my credentials, I'm presenting my experience. Senator Kyl talks about experience. I really don't think it's the kind of experience that's really helping Arizona families today. I'm a street competitor. I go out in the street and compete every day. I talk to families because they're my customers. I think I understand Arizona's families.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. Senator Kyl, it's an expensive campaign.

Jon Kyl:
It is indeed the most expensive. As a matter of fact, Jim Pederson has spent more money on this campaign than any other candidate for either the House or the Senate in either party throughout the entire United States. And I hope we don't get to the point where only millionaires or very wealthy people can afford to run for office. That would be not good for our society. It takes a lot of time and effort to go out and raise money in a campaign like this. But the good side of it is, we now have over 14,000 donors to my campaign. And to meet those folks is to really have a good sense about the future of the country. The more folks I meet in Arizona, the more optimistic I really am. But it is too bad that it does cost that much. It helps the television stations, but it would be nice if we could have better ways, such as this debate, for example, to get our views out and if some of the advertising were not as negative as it is. Obviously we would all be better off if it were more positive. I think the bottom line here is that voters are served by having as much information as possible. And as expensive as campaigns are, I wouldn't trade it for not getting information. It's hard to go out and raise the money. I'm sure Mr. Pederson doesn't like writing all those checks. But the bottom line is to get information to voters is critical for them to make sound judgments, and I'm glad that we can at least get that done.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. Sheriff, what's your take on this big-money campaign?

Richard Mack:
Well I'm glad that Senator Kyl has finally told the Arizona people to vote for me. [Laughter] Because I'm the only one not spending that money, and I'm definitely not the millionaire. And you know what? I think the way they have spent their money is kind of indicative of how they'll spend money in Washington, D.C. You know, you judge a man by the way he runs his campaign. And also, between the three of us, I am the only one who has not spent money on television and radio ads attacking my opponents. Primarily because I don't have any money, but I still haven't done it.

Bill Buckmaster:
All right. We are less than a minute to go before the closing statements, but we're coming back to -- for Mr. Pederson with the rebuttal on this question before we have the closing statements.

Jim Pederson:
Well, Mr. Kyl made representation it was 14,000 contributors. How many of those are from Arizona? You know, I have 7000 contributors, the majority of which are from Arizona. But if you want to talk about money, how about the five and a half million dollars that Mr. Kyl has received from Washington-based political action committees? What about the hundreds of thousands of dollars that he's received from the oil companies, from the pharmaceutical companies, from the tobacco companies? I don't think any of those companies really have a major presence in Arizona. What's that about solving the problems of Arizona? People know where my money's coming from. You know, I'd like a detailed explanation from Senator Kyl as to where his money is coming from.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. Gentlemen, we are at that time now for your closing statements. We have carved out two minutes for each of you here at the end of the forum. And we began with Senator Kyl so on this round here at the close, we'll begin with Mr. Pederson, go around the table for your closing statement.

Jim Pederson:
Thank you, Bill. And thank you, Ann. It was a pleasure. Ladies and gentlemen, my fellow Arizonans, this campaign is about change versus the status quo. It's about the people of Arizona versus special interests. It's about results. Results. That's what I go by. Results versus tough talk. My vision is about fixing things. As I said before, I've proven throughout my career that I'm pretty good at fixing things. We've got a lot of things that are broken in Arizona. And that's what I'm going to do when I go back to Washington. I'm going to work for the people of Arizona. Once upon a time, our representatives did that. They didn't get involved in the culture and the environment of Washington. They worked on specific problems that you face every day. And that's not happening anymore. Instead our representatives work on the problems of special interests. They work on the problems of lobbyists. Senator Kyl has done a pretty good job tonight of explaining to you why I don't need this job for the money, and he's right. I don't. And I don't need it for an ego stroke. You know, Roberta and I have been to plenty of cocktail parties. We don't need to go to anymore. Why don't we go back there, roll up our sleeves, and get to work for you? That's the principle that I've been guided by all my life. Let's fix our immigration problem. Let's fix our schools. Let's fix our health care system. Let's get that bottom-line result that I've been used to getting all my life that maybe the people back in Washington really don't understand because they don't recognize it. They don't talk to you. I've been spending a lot of time talking to you during the past year. Well, really all my life. I think I know, and I think I know how to provide the answers. Thank you so much.

Bill Buckmaster:
Thank you, Mr. Pederson. As we go now around the table, we will have Sheriff Mack with the final two minutes.

Richard Mack:
Well thank you, Bill and Ann, and I really want to reiterate that I appreciate KUAT for standing for the proper principles of freedom of the press and my personal freedom of speech. You know, 230 years ago, our founding fathers brought us a country based on individual liberty, limited government, and very little taxation. They did this as a result of the tyranny from the British crown based on over taxation and just way too much government regulation and oppression. You know, my favorite show was "Braveheart", and at one point Robert the Bruce repents for having betrayed William Wallace, and he's talking to his father, and he says, I want to believe. I want to believe as he does,' talking about William Wallace. Well, now I'm asking you to believe. Even you die-hard partisan republicans and democrats. You might even have a sign for one of my opponents. I'm asking you this question. How corrupt and scandalous does Washington, D.C. have to get before you say enough is enough and you vote for someone else? Do you really believe that voting for another democrat or republican is going to solve anything? You don't think it's time to go somewhere else yet? How bad does it have to get before you say, I'm leaving because the party left me and left American fundamentalism? That's what this election is about. It's about freedom and liberty. And I'm asking you to consider me the alternative.

Bill Buckmaster:
Okay. And the final two minutes tonight, Senator Kyl.

Jon Kyl:
Bill and Ann, thank you very much, and I thank both Richard and Jim as well for the spirited discussion. Carol and I met each other here at the University of Arizona, shall we say a long time ago. Both of us got our degrees here. She put me through law school as a registered nurse working over at St. Joseph's Hospital. Our daughter was born in Tucson. We've got two grandkids here now, and we always appreciate coming to Tucson to visit with folks here. I want to say that as I've traveled around the state, and it's no different in Phoenix or other parts of the state as it is here in Tucson, folks are concerned about their future. They realize that the economy is good right now, but there's always the question about tomorrow, and security is a critical issue for everyone. And I think, especially in these serious times when clearly we are challenged as we haven't been for a long time with these security concerns both on our border and with the war against the terrorists, folks turn to leaders who are knowledgeable, who are experienced, who have worked with others to get things done and have produced results. In my position as chairman of the terrorism subcommittee and helping to write many of the provisions of the laws that we are now using to be more safe, my work on victims' rights against sexual predators and other areas in which I have provided protection, I've tried to focus on those areas because I know it's of such great concern. So I've provided that experience, and I believe that that experience and that knowledge commends me for your vote, and I'm asking for your vote here this evening. You've got to be able to work together with other people to get things done. Working with John McCain, I think we've provided the kind of leadership that I've talked about here this evening. And so as we think about whether our vote is going to count or not and therefore which of the candidates to vote for, I get back to the point I made in the beginning. This race will be between Mr. Pederson and myself, and I'm asking for your support to continue to work for you as your U.S. Senator.

Bill Buckmaster:
Thank you very much, senator. Thank you, gentlemen. That concludes our Election 2006 forum with the three candidates for the U.S. Senate. This forum, along with all of our election 2006 political coverage, is available for your viewing anytime at kuat.org. I'm Bill Buckmaster. On behalf of Ann Brown of the "Arizona Daily Star" and all of the candidates with us tonight, thank you very much for watching. Good night.

Content Partner: