Public Affairs; Episode 2116; Public Affairs Special: Republican U.S. Senate Debate

You This program is co-sponsored by NJN The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Record, and The Hurled News. This is an NJN News Special Report.

Decision 2002, the Republican U.S. Senate debate. Hello, I'm Kent Manahan. Welcome to NJN's Decision 2002 Republican U.S. Senate debate. For the next hour, we will be hearing from the three candidates running in the Republican U.S. Senate primary race. They are former assistant state treasurer Douglas Forester. State Senator John Matthewson of Gloucester County. And State Senator Diane Allen of Burlington County. Our panel of reporters asking the questions tonight include Herb Jackson, Deputy State House Bureau Chief for the Bergen Record. Harold Jackson, New Jersey commentary page editor for The Philadelphia Inquirer. Michael Aaron, senior political correspondent for NJN News. And Alfred Doblin, editorial page editor with The Hurled News. Before we begin, there are rules for tonight's debate. The candidates are prohibited from using props of any kind.

I will have to stop a candidate who violates this rule. The time limits for this debate will be strictly enforced. We are going to begin our program with opening statements. The order has been predetermined. Each candidate has one minute. We begin with Mr. Forester. Thank you, Kent. My name is Doug Forester. I'm running against Bob Torres-Helley for the United States Senate. You know, when my oldest son was four years old, I took him out into the backyard to see Halley's comment, which comes by only every 76 years. I held him by the hand and I looked skyward and told him that when it came by next, I wouldn't be around. And he would be an old man. And he would probably have a son or a grandson by the hand. I told him that we would put a message on that comment's tail. So when it came back, he would be able to pass it on. And that message was that his daddy loves him more than life itself. We have been given a similar message from our founders, who loved our country more than life itself. They pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor.

They have given us a message that we need to pass on, a message of equality, liberty, and opportunity. I want to go and stand with President Bush as he defends these ideals. I want to be your United States Senator for that purpose. I ask for your support. Senator Allen, your opening statement. Thank you. I want to first thank NJN and all of the sponsors for giving me this opportunity to speak to the voters about my record. Hi, I'm Diane Allen. I'm a fiscal conservative. I voted to cut taxes more than 40 times in New Jersey. And I will work with the President to cut federal taxes and get the economy back on track. I've written laws to fight terrorism and put violent criminals in jail. And I will stand with the President in this war on terrorism abroad. But more importantly, I'm running for Senate because you deserve a senator that New Jersey can be proud of. I'm angry at how Bob Tourselli has been an embarrassment to the state of New Jersey. I think that honor and integrity are core American values. And that's why this week I'm going to release my income taxes.

And I'm challenging all of the others who are running in this race to do the same. Because you need to know where our money is coming from. Ethics has been an issue in this race. And you can set everything straight. You get to vote for a senator you can trust, a senator you can be proud of. Senator Matthewson? Thank you, Kent. And thank you. Good evening. I was born in Jersey City and raised in North Jersey by parents who taught my sister and me personal responsibility and family values. I attended public school and Seton Hall University where I met my wife, Janet. I worked my way through college and law school as a teamster. Janet and I eventually moved to Gloucester County where we've raised our three children. And this year we celebrate our 25th wedding anniversary. For the last 11 years I've had the privilege of representing the people of South Jersey in the New Jersey Senate. We have a record of accomplishment. You know in May all of us stop working for the federal government and paying taxes and we start keeping our own money. I think that's ridiculous. Government has gotten too big.

We need to cut taxes. We need to promote family values and good education. We need to make certain that people get a good quality health care. We need to make certain that our social security is protected. And most importantly we need to make sure that our nation is secure in its national defense. When you elect me to the New Jersey Senate you're going to be sending someone to Washington who doesn't want to be someone but will do something for the people of this state. Thank you. We are now going to move to questions from our panel of reporters. We will begin with Herb Jackson whose question goes to Mr. Forester. Good evening. Congress passed a series of tax cuts last year that will be phased in through 2006 and then expire after 2010. Some members of Congress want to make those tax cuts permanent. But others say we've already blown through the surplus and extending the tax cuts will only mean more going back into deficit spending. Would you vote to make the tax cuts permanent and if so what about the deficit spending? Herb I would vote to make the tax cuts permanent. I happen to think that the tax stimulus package was wise and I think we're already beginning to see some of the wisdom of that play its way out in the economy.

I happen to believe that taxes are one of the central problems that we face because taxes burden everybody at every level. Anything that can be done and which I think has been done at the federal level to do that and to make it permanent will stimulate the economy. I am aware of the fact that we are on a war footing. This is an unusual time and I realize that even those who support the balance budget amendment which I do recognize that there are certain exceptions that are given during times of national emergency. So I'm pleased to see what President Bush has done and is doing and what the Republicans are pressing for and I'm eager to get there to help them. Your response, Ms. Allen? I think it's very important that we make these tax cuts permanent. I've voted to cut taxes more than 40 times and in fact I've never voted to increase the tax and I will do that in Washington as well, took a pledge to do that. I believe as a fiscal conservative we must cut taxes, we must live within our budget. I know that Doug's talking about cutting taxes but when he was a mayor of West Windsor he increased taxes more than 300%.

I've never increased taxes, I've only cut taxes and that's what I'll do in Washington. Mr. Matthewson, your response. Thank you. Yes, I would vote to make these tax cuts permanent. You see, it's not government that creates jobs and moves our economy, it's business. By giving these tax credits and these tax cuts now to the United States people we will be instilling an economy that needs to grow. With that growth we'll come a broader tax base as opposed to an increase in taxes. Those are important things. President Bush said that he would support deficit spending in a time of war. Well, we are at war. It's an appropriate time to deficit spend but we will get out of this deficit by doing the right things fiscally and conservatively. Your opportunity for a rebuttal, Mr. Forester. Thank you. Some of you have seen the movie Meet the Parents and in that movie there was a great scene in the backyard where there was a failed septic system. That's what was going on all over my town. We moved to address a very serious public health problem which I think is what government's basic responsibility is to make a place safe for families. That's what we did. It ended up costing a dollar a day which is a far cry from the billions of dollars in debt and additional spending that my opponents have voted for.

All right. Follow-up. Your question now, Harold Jackson for Miss Allen. Good evening candidates. Miss Allen. Congress says you know it's finally passed campaign finance reform legislation but many people feel that it is woefully inadequate. What additional steps do you think need to be made to make sure that any American can afford to run for state or national political office? As I travel through the state, people talk to me about campaign finance reform and there's a woman in Home Dell who came up to me and said I'm very concerned because I'm afraid that we could end up with two senators in New Jersey who've purchased their seats and that is a problem. You're absolutely right. We need to make sure that anybody can run and right now it really isn't that way. Campaign finance reform has some issues. There are some things within the original bill that perhaps are unconstitutional and they'll be tested in the court. But with the president I felt that what was signed should have been signed. Do we need to go further? We do. We need to make sure that anybody can run.

That's the whole idea our founding fathers had that people would leave their farms that come to Washington or to Trenton or to wherever and do their duty and that they would come and they would do what needed to be done for government and then go home. It was a duty. It wasn't a place to make money. It wasn't a place to make contacts. It was a place to do your duty and we need to make sure that campaign finance reform goes further. Response Mr. Matthewson. Yes. I believe we should close some of the loopholes that are still left out there for campaign finance reform. But you know I have to tell you this. Money isn't everything. For the long time the media has been reporting that John Matthewson has raised the least amount of money yet. I'm right there in the polls actually number two for all the polls that have been given. I think that the American public want to see less spending and more talk from the candidates. You know candidates really spend an awful lot of time bashing each other when they really should be talking about issues. A form like this gives us that opportunity. Finance reform is the correct thing to do. We need to go further close the loopholes and that's what I would support. Mr. Forrester. You know I honestly believe that it is inappropriate to make the implication that Senator Corzine purchased his seat because although I supported his opponent.

Frankly, it is an implication that somehow the people who voted for him were fools. The reality of the situation is that we have to get our message out. Those who are elected officials have a distinct advantage in that regard. I have to put my money where my mouth is in order to make the case to the voters of our message of protecting retirements, protecting wallets and protecting our families. Rebuttal, Ms. Allen? Financial disclosure is extremely important and that's really part of all of this campaign finance reform. That's why I want to release my income taxes and why I challenge my opponents to release theirs. It's important that you know where the money is coming from. I do financial disclosures now but every time somebody gives me a dollar, whether it's $1 or $10 or even more, you know who it's from. We don't know who it's from for people who finance their campaigns themselves. Releasing income tax would tell.

Your time is up, Harold. Do you have a follow-up? Yes, Ms. Allen. Do you feel that specific limits should be placed on how much personal income can be used in political campaigns? I'm told that there's a constitutional issue in that. It certainly would make it easier for everybody to have equal access so that we all could get out our story and it wouldn't just be money from our own pockets, buying the ability to get the story out. I'm not sure that we can do it but it sure would mean an even playing field and it would mean that anybody could run. Michael Aaron, your question for Senator Matthewsson. Senator Matthewsson, Pentagon planners are talking about a ground invasion of Iraq next year involving 200,000 or more American troops. Would you support a ground invasion aimed at top wing Saddam Hussein? Well, let's face it, Saddam Hussein is not the best character in the world. He certainly has been cruel to his own people by gassing them and annihilating them and he's certainly been cruel to the rest of the world. But I think before we commit American troops to an invasion, we need to be very guarded in our approach.

I think that the Pentagon and the President and the Senate and the Congress will have to take a very careful look after all it is Congress who can declare such a war. But we need further information before we go that far. Creating and committing United States troops, men and women to go to the battlefield is a very, very grave decision. It's one that cannot be taken lightly. I would support it only in the event after I had enough information to know certainly that we were going to end this reign of terror that Saddam Hussein and others have created. Your response, Mr. Forester? I happen to believe that it is more important than ever to have a United States Senator who understands that the world is a predatory place. You know, those ideals that I spoke about in my opening statement of equality, liberty and opportunity need to be defended. We need to be vigilant, more so than ever. Sometimes we get lackadaisical about the status of the world and we let our defense down and we always get into trouble. We've been reminded again that we need to be strong. I'm appreciative of the fact that President Bush is leading the way. I'm eager to get to Washington to help him.

Senator Allen, your response? The President is running a war on terror and he's doing a very good job and we need to stand with him. He wants to root out terrorists wherever they are. He's not after the people of Afghanistan or the state of Afghanistan. He's after the terrorists who are in it. And if this war takes us to Iran or Iraq or North Korea or wherever it is going after terrorists, then we must follow that and we must stand with the President as we move through. Opportunity for rebuttal, Mr. Matthews. We need to be resolved in a war against terrorism. You know, for too long our country has talked about a war on drugs and we can become complacent. We don't follow through. This war on terrorism is very, very important because the stake, literally the future of our nation here, is at stake. What we need to do is follow our instincts. What we need to do is gather information and before we commit troops to a foreign land, we better be sure that we're going after the right people. Saddam Hussein is our enemy. Saddam Hussein needs to be brought down. And when that time is ready, we need to support the President in that move.

Now for Dublin, your question for Mr. Forester. Mr. Forester, since September 11th, there has been bipartisan support for re-structuring the immigration and naturalization service. What type of INS reform would you support? Well, I think we can start with the existing laws. You know, one of the earliest things that we did in my campaign is to call for the enforcement of existing laws for immigration control. And I think we need to do that for a couple of reasons. One is that it is clear to us now that it is a matter of national security. There are those who have come to this country to use the liberties that we have provided against us. We need to stop that. And so we need to enforce the laws that we have in place. And secondly, I would say that it is important that we enforce the immigration laws that we now have on the books because it is an insult to those immigrants who have come through the front door, who have obeyed the laws, who have gone through the process. You know, when I was a pension director, I used to get calls from people who would say somebody abused the law and it makes all public employees look bad. I agree. That is why we need to make sure that we enforce the laws of legitimate immigrants are not made to look bad, are not made to feel awkward, and that there is no backlash. Response, Ms. Allen. The president wants to divide the INS into two different parts. The first part would take care of supporting those who come and who are looking for the American dream. And I believe that we should help those who come in legally and who want to take part just like our ancestors did.

But the other part is that we need to make sure that our shores are safe and to do that, we need to give Governor Ridge cabinet level status so that he can really make homeland security work, give him the money, the power, everything he needs to keep us safe. Response, Mr. Matthewson. The INS needs to be reformed and certainly President Bush has his plans. But at the same time, we just can't say we want to reform for the sake of reforming. We need to give our law enforcement people and the INS the tools and the money necessary so that they can screen out illegal immigrants. Make sure that they don't stay on our shores and leave to go home because they're here to create trouble. What we need to do is also give our law enforcement the tools to make certain that we follow people and get rid of them when they're in our nation illegally. That's the appropriate measure and that's what we need to complete. You're rebuttal, Mr. Forester. I happen to believe that the reform of the INS is terribly overdue. We should have done it a long time ago. I felt so badly when President Bush was embarrassed a couple of weeks ago when some of the visas for the hijackers just recently arrived.

To put him in that kind of situation, I think is intolerable. He doesn't deserve it. We need to make sure that we enforce the laws that are in place now. Then we can address other kinds of reforms. Any more questions? Mr. Forester, would you support splitting the INS in two and would you want it under the Department of Justice or under a separate administrator? I think that the jury is out and whether it be wise to split it in two. I think it would be appropriate that it would be put under the Department of Justice. I happen to think that part of the issue for us to deal with has to do with the tracking system that has applied to visitors because one of the things that we need to do is to keep track of the people who are coming to this country for visitation purposes. We are free country. We enjoy a great deal of liberty. But we have to make sure that we track those who come in so they don't just disappear into the sands. I think the Justice Department can do that best. Next question, Herb Jackson for Senator Allen. There was a lot of talk in the 2000 elections about reforming Social Security and all the same concerns remain in May 2002.

President Bush has advocated allowing workers to put a portion of their payroll taxes into accounts that could be invested in the stock market supposedly to increase returns. But critics say that would drain resources away that were needed to pay for benefits for existing retirees and people about the retire. Do you favor allowing payroll taxes to be put into private accounts and if so, how much? We need to make sure that Social Security is secure. One of the ways we can do that, I believe, is to increase IRA benefits so that when people put money into IRAs or into medical savings or educational savings as they age, that money will be there. It will be tax-free, it will be there. What we found is that over 8 million people right now who are over the age of 65 have only Social Security to lean on. When Social Security was first put into effect, the idea was that it would just catch those who didn't have anything else. In fact, it's catching a lot of people and if we allowed too much money to be put into separate accounts that can go into the stock market and some disaster occurs and the stock market falls and people perhaps aren't prepared for it, perhaps they won't have that money when they become 65 and need it.

So I would allow a small amount but a very, very small amount and those people would have to know what they were doing and be trained because we can't afford to have any of our older citizens without that safety net of Social Security. Your response, Senator Matthewson? The one thing we can't do is we can't increase Social Security taxes and we can't decrease benefits. That's been the fixed for 20 times now since Social Security was started. What we must do is protect Social Security at every stake. That is a golden trust that all seniors, all people deserve to make certain that their money is there when they retire. What we need to do is encourage private investment by younger people who are contributing now to Social Security. That will free up some money, that will encourage and grow the Social Security and retirement funds for those younger individuals and it will protect in the long range Social Security for those who are using it now. I'm grateful to say that the time that I served as the Director of the New Jersey Retirement Systems gave me a great insight into the kinds of things that should be done and should not be done with regard to retirement security.

With regard to Social Security, I believe that the current asset stream into Social Security, which are the payroll taxes, should not be interrupted. We can't do that, perhaps we could have set Social Security up a little bit differently 70 years ago, but we are faced with a situation now where it needs to be held firm and that promise needs to be kept. I would support President Bush's Social Security Guarantee Act that is being prepared. I think that's important for us to do. You're rebuttal? One of the things that we can do for those who are over 65 right now is have the federal government give them a contract that says exactly how much money in Social Security they will get. And of course that's based on how long they worked and at what pay scale and so on. But in actual contract that the federal government will have to live up to. And I think that's the kind of thing that will make retirees feel a lot more secure to know that their Social Security will be there, a contract that can be enforced. Any follow-up question? Mr. Matheson, I was just a little unclear. You said we should encourage young people to invest, but should we let them invest the payroll taxes that are now going into the trust fund?

In a very limited amount. Yes. All right. Next question, Harold. Your question for Mr. Matheson. Yes, Mr. Matheson. One of the strongest commentaries on race relations today is to quest for reparations for African Americans. Not only for the inequities and indignities of slavery, but for the inequities and injustices of segregation. The more thoughtful proposals are asking for additional federal dollars to improve America's minority communities, rather than cash for individuals. Would you support reparations legislation that would direct more money to poor minority communities? If you want to learn policy changes, what you make to help make minority majority cities such as Newark and Camden more helpful than they are today. Thank you. Well, I'm not only going to suggest that I've done some of that. As the chairman of the Home Port Alliance for the Battleship New Jersey, one of our goals was to help raise Camden its economy and create jobs for the people who live in Camden City. It's a shame that New Jersey is one of the wealthiest states, and yet we have the second poorest city in the entire nation.

I believe that legislation is appropriate to help our inner cities. You see, as our inner cities go, so do the rest of our country. It seems totally unfair that our inner cities now are decaying when they need a really good tax-radable income so that their people can enjoy the kinds of things that we have throughout the rest of the land. It was once upon a time where our urban areas were, in fact, the backbone of our economy, now to some have gone into decay. This reparation would help a long way in trying to develop those inner cities and put those cities back on course to where they need to be, so that the people of those cities no longer have to rely on income from outside but can create their own income from within. Your response, Mr. Forester? I do not believe that reparations is a pathway that would be helpful for our country. I think one of the great success stories of the United States that we are still working through is making sure that equality and opportunity and liberty are given to all Americans. But I happen to think that the best way to do that is to make sure that we have an economic system that is a level playing field that allows businesses to create jobs and draw people into the economic system. To go the pathway of reparations, I think, would be counterproductive for a lot of different reasons.

Thank you. I've been working in the city of Camden long before I was in the legislature. I'm on the board of the aquarium and the idea of the aquarium was to be the first piece that was there and to add lots of other things, other venues, to bring people in. And we're seeing now that we have economic redevelopment actually occurring. I've sponsored legislation for a light rail line that goes into Camden that will bring people into Camden to use all of those new venues. And we're seeing business market rate apartments are actually going to be building Camden for the first time in probably 50 years. Your step, your rebuttal, Mr. Matthews. Bringing money to the inner cities to help rebuild is an important step. We need to drive the economy in those cities. We need to create job opportunities for people in those cities. That's where truly these cities will come about and have a new birth. You want to follow up? Just a quick follow up. Mrs. Allen, I want to be clear. Did you say that you do support reparations as a process to bring more money into these cities? I support bringing money into those cities without question because those cities are where we need to make a difference.

If we don't bring back our urban areas, the rest of the state is going to fall apart too. We need to really focus on our urban areas, put money into it as we have and as we should continue. Michael Aaron, you have a question for Mr. Forrester. Mr. Forrester, the federal superfund to clean up toxic waste sites is running out of money. It used to be financed by attacks on industry, but that's expired. New Jersey has more superfund sites than any other state. Would you support reinstating the tax? I would support the superfund cleanup of fund. However, I would structure it a little bit differently in terms of the taxation because a lot of the taxation is applied to businesses that really don't have anything to do with those superfund sites. I happen to think that we know a great deal more about ecology than we did even 25 years ago in the importance of cleaning up those sites is even more prominent. But in terms of the funding structure, I would rearrange it and not apply it to the businesses that have nothing to do with it. Senator Allen?

The superfund sites and the way we deal with them needs to be looked at in a very different way. There's a superfund site in my district and 10 years ago the federal government decided how they were going to handle what they were going to do and then nothing occurred. They had plenty of tax money, they had plenty of everything and they did nothing and the people who lived in that district who as it happened were relatively poor weren't treated appropriately. Superfund sites need to be when they're identified cleaned up right away and we need to make sure that we have the funds to do it, but I believe those funds are there. I believe what isn't there is our desire to do it right. We've done some things in New Jersey. We've created Brownfield's legislation where we've helped new businesses come into Brownfields and help recreate those areas. But at the same time, we've aggressively pursued the businesses that are responsible for the pollution. Not those businesses just on a willing nilly and tax everyone. That's inappropriate. But we need to go after very aggressively those businesses who've created the impropriety, who've created the environmental hazard and make them pay. You rebuttal Mr. Farrister?

I agree about the issue of taxing those businesses that are directly related. I think one of the things that is very discouraging for companies who are not directly related is that they are going to be drawn into something for which they're not responsible when we're going after Superfund sites. I believe that it needs to be a tax that's fair. Mr. Farrister, I have a quick follow up. Earlier in the debate, Senator Allen twice brought up the subject of tax returns. I think she had you in mind when she did. What makes you think that? I don't know, but are you going to release your tax returns? I'm pleased to say that the United States Senate has addressed that issue very thoroughly. We are all required as candidates for the Senate to file disclosure statements. As a matter of fact, we're going to have to be filing them within a couple of weeks. Those are very extensive statements. Those identify exactly the kinds of things that the public needs to know to make sure there is integrity in the process of running for office. I'm pleased to comply with that law. I happen to think it's a good law and that's what we will do. Alfred, your question for Senator Allen.

Mrs. Allen, the advancement of DNA testing has proved the innocence of many inmates sitting on death row. Should the federal government declare a moratorium on the death penalty, or should the death penalty perhaps be abolished? I think at this point the death penalty is the law, but you know in the state of New Jersey, we've not put anybody to death for 40 years. DNA testing is an extremely important way to find out whether anybody is in fact not guilty who is on death row. But it's also a way for people to identify those who are guilty long after a crime has been committed. And it's important that we change those laws as well so that we can use DNA testing decades later if somebody is able to be found as, for instance, someone who's committed a rape. And they find that the DNA matches, but they weren't able to do that long ago. We must change our DNA laws so that we can take care of that as well. Mr. Mathieson, you're a 30 second response. I believe that DNA testing has given us great insight into helping prove those people who may have been found guilty now innocent.

But at the same time, I do support the death penalty. I think someone who commits a heinous crime needs to be put to death. Certainly murder is right at the top of that list. For too long in New Jersey, we've let death row inmates sit on death row. We have a law. We have legislation that has passed the law that says the death penalty is in fact enforced in New Jersey yet we have a Supreme Court who continues to ignore it. I think it should be enforced and I believe in it. Mr. Farrister. I happen to believe that every effort needs to be made to make sure that justice is done. But justice also includes the death penalty in cases of heinous crimes. We have to recognize that there is a moral consequence to our actions. And when we ignore that by saying that the death penalty is inappropriate, we deny something very important about justice. I'm in favor of strict application of our laws. I think DNA and any technology that is applied to establish the integrity of the decision is worthwhile. The opportunity for rebuttal, Miss Allen.

The important thing is that we make our streets safe and what does that, getting violent criminals off the street. I wrote a law called the no early release law that says that violent criminals have to spend 85% of their sentence in prison before they can even be considered for parole. And the FBI says it is because of laws like that that we are much safer now that the statistics, the violent crime statistics are going down. We need to be tough on crime and we need to keep the violent criminals off the street. Call it up. Mrs. Allen, you mentioned that the DNA laws need to be changed. Do you feel that there should be a moratorium on the death penalty until those laws are changed? I think we have a virtual moratorium on the death penalty in New Jersey because it hasn't been used in nearly 40 years. Herb Jackson, your question for Mr. Matthewsons. September 11th changed a lot. One of the places that those changes are most noticeable is at airports. There's longer lines and now we have federal employees starting to move in as baggage checkers. Do you think these measures have been effective? Have we gotten what we are hoping to get out of them?

Or was there anything that you would hope to see to improve airline safety such as arming pilots or anything in that scale that has not been done? Certainly, the United States has learned to deal with inconveniences for our own personal safety. Waiting lines at airports and other areas are maybe inconveniences but they are very appropriate. We need to protect ourselves against terrorists. You know, when I remember September 11th, I'm sure it's a day that none of us will ever forget. I remember seeing the tragic that occurred literally on TV and almost thinking that it was a Hollywood script. But I think it will forever burn in all of our minds just how solemn and just how resolved we need to be to fight terrorism. If it creates some inconveniences for us at airports, we'll then so be it. I think it also appropriate that we think about very strongly arming our pilots with guns. But they can't be the kind of guns obviously that fire in a cockpit and create a problem. These are guns that would be specially designed to sting and to stun people so that they could no longer perform the terrorist acts. We need to do everything we possibly can to make certain that our safety is paramount.

Mr. Forester. There's no question about the fact that safety is paramount. There's no question about the fact that we need to apply all of the great technology that we have at our disposal in order to keep ourselves safe. But part of the use of that technology, which we have to keep in mind, is to preserve our liberties as well. One of the great concerns I have is that there are those who would be willing to sacrifice all liberties for the sake of security. I agree with Benjamin Franklin that that is not a good idea. Your response? Well, I'm not sure that arming pilots alone is the way to go because while the pilots will be safe, what about the passengers? We need to make sure that we have more federal marshals who are on these planes so that when something happens, the passengers will be safe as well. And when it comes to security at airports, my mother's in her late 70s and mom, I'm sorry, I said it on television. But she has been, she travels and she's been stopped quite a few times and had her suitcases gone through. She's in her late 70s. She doesn't look like a terrorist and indeed has no-

I have to call time. Senator Matheson. I would go to go back and saying that sometimes as terrorist acts will cause some inconveniences for us. We need to be vigilant in our approach. We need to make certain that airport security is at height. We need to make certain that we stop terrorists before they get on our planes. And if it means waiting in long lines, well then so be it. Follow up question. Mr. Farrester, when you say we need to not sacrifice liberties, where would you draw that line? For example, there's some criticism of the Justice Department and the way it's treating legal immigrants in this country who are being held as material witnesses. Do you think that they've crossed the line of liberties there? I think that the Justice Department is handling things as best they can at a very, very difficult time. I am in complete support of President Bush's war on terrorism. What I meant when I was talking about sacrificing liberties for security are situations which emerge that have to do with frankly government taking advantage of an opportunity and an emergency and saying, well we need to have all national ID cards. That's the kind of thing that I think we need to be very, very skeptical about.

Harold Jackson, your question for Mr. Farrester. Yes, Mr. Farrester. President Bush has proposed a plan that would extend health insurance coverage to 6 million Americans, but 40 million Americans in this country are uninsured. President Bush's father proposed a plan in 1992 that would have extended health insurance to 30 million Americans. Are you willing to tell the current President Bush that he needs to go back to the drawing board to make health care affordable to more Americans? I happen to believe that the future of health care in fact we're even seeing it now is prescription drugs and that really is where the focus should be in terms of making health care affordable. When the national programs are developed back in the 60s, pharmacy solutions were not that prevalent and everything was defined around hospitalization. We need to rethink that because there are a lot of people who are not offered now the kinds of solutions that are most effective in terms of medical. I believe there are a number of things that we can be done to provide prescription drugs and I happen to believe that that is the heart of what medical care is for the future.

We need to attend to that now. I'm eager to get to Washington to address that issue, which I think will be most helpful. May we have your response, Senator Allen? Here in New Jersey, we've done a lot of things along those lines that the federal government has and I'm eager to take some of the programs that we've worked out here to Washington and share them with the rest of the country. Our fan care, where we try to get the parents of young children whose insurance we are covering, poor children. We try to get the parents as well covered and that's really worked out very nicely but more importantly than that is our pad program, giving drugs to those fragile seniors and the disabled who are very poor and who truly need the help. We've done it, we've done it for 27 years. I have to call time Senator Matthew Simmons. New Jersey has been a leader in the health care field for our nation. We've sponsored some things like the 48-hour maternity bill, a patient bill of rights, making certain that people's genetic privacy is kept private so that insurance companies can't use it to deny them coverage. In this particular case, getting more people insured is a very important issue.

One thing I would suggest is giving tax credits for those people who buy health insurance and not waiting for them to pay their taxes but to give them that credit upfront immediately so they can purchase the insurance. Another opportunity is certainly through prescription drugs. We have a great prescription drug plan here in the state of New Jersey, we need to do the same thing and watch it. We put a lot of opportunity, Mr. Forester. Again, I happen to think the focus should be on prescription drugs because that is what is the biggest burden that most people face. I have to think the good news is that New Jersey has been the real center of what great work has been done by the pharmaceutical industry creating products that promote health and well-being. There are a lot of things that need to be done in terms of the distribution of those products, a lot of inefficiencies, a lot of costs that burden the health care system. We need to solve those problems, free up those resources and be able to provide the kind of medical care that is efficient and least invasive. Your question, Michael Aaron, for Senator Allen. Senator Allen, when President Bush told the Israelis to stop their incursion into the occupied territories immediately, Israel kept going, saying that they were going after terrorists just as we did in Afghanistan. Is there anything the President should have done that he didn't do?

Well, I stand with the President on most that he does, but I have to tell you, I think that Israel has to make its own decisions. Israel is fighting terrorism. Israel is a number of times, and I've seen the fear in people's eyes when they walk into stores just on main streets. I was in Israel one time right after the Gulf War, and I saw buildings that had been destroyed by scud missiles. And you know, they were asked by us to not fight back. There are very best allies, very best friends, and they decided not to. They stuck with us. We need to stick with them. I only hope that we can be as good a friend to Israel as Israel has been to us. We are fighting terrorism. We're going after terrorism. We say any place in the world. There is terrorism that is alive and well, and thriving, unfortunately, in Israel. And we must stand with Israel as it roots out terrorism as well. Response, Mr. Matthewson. You know, Israel has been our strongest ally for literally now 50 years. And we need to protect Israel. We need to be there as they have been for us. But terrorism is a very, very difficult issue to fight. In the Middle East, it's probably been going on for at least 2,000 years.

Henry Kissinger just recently wrote that we need to help promote an opportunity for all sides to reach a peaceful solution to the inequities and to the problems that are facing now in the Middle East. I would stand by Israel, but I will also promote a peace that all people in the Middle East can live with. Your response, Mr. Farrister. I happen to believe that President Bush has articulated well the historical position of United States with regard to the Middle East and supporting Israel, our ally, and our Arab allies as well. I happen to believe that he is working through an extraordinarily difficult time, and we need strong, strong support to help him do that. I would further say, however, on just kind of a limited level, those who promise spiritual reward for murdering women and children as deliberate targets need to be condemned in the strongest turn. It is blasphemy in theological terms and the assault on civilization. Right now, we have the head of Israel meeting with our President, and we understand that one of the things that's going to be presented to President Bush is factual evidence that Yasser Arafat is indeed a terrorist, that he has supported terrorism, not just in terms of not stopping it, which we know has occurred, but supported in terms of financial support. And if that's true, we need to stand with Israel going after Yasser Arafat as well.

Follow up. Senator Allen, can the United States be both pro-Israel and an even-handed broker of peace in the region? Well, it comes down once again to terrorism. Who is it that is performing the terrorism? We're seeing these young men and even women strapping bombs around their bodies, walking into public places, setting them off, killing themselves, but also killing women and children and babies. And it's absolutely the wrong thing to have happened. We have to stand against terrorism. We're doing that in this country. We're standing against terrorism abroad. We need to stand with Israel against terrorism, too. Your turn, Alfred. A question for Senator Matheson. Mr. Matheson, as a member of the United States Senate, you'll be responsible for confirming we're rejecting nominees to the United States Supreme Court. Should a nominee's position on abortion play a major role in that decision? Well, not only will I be the same as I've been in the New Jersey Senate, but I will carry that even a little bit further in this particular dialogue. In the New Jersey Senate, I've had the opportunity to sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee now for the last ten years.

The thing that I've always used as a basis for judging potential judges is whether or not they have the ability to interpret the Constitution and the laws of the state and not to write new laws. I don't believe that there should be any other litmus test other than the intellectual capability of a judge to be able to do those things to interpret our Constitution and to uphold the laws of this country. And that's the same litmus test that I will use when I serve in the U.S. Senate and hopefully serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Forrester. You know, I remember a time when I took a walk at lunch back when I was pension director and I saw the grave of New Jersey's first attorney general. And all that gravestone, there are a lot of lot of comments. Among them, they said he was a man not given to legal subtleties. That seems like an odd thing for us to say today. But I would say that one of the things about the United States Senate is that we need to get judges at the highest level and all levels that can affirm the clear intent of the law reflected through the democratic process. That's the integrity of the process that we need and one that I will bring to that decision-making process.

Ms. Allen. The only litmus test that I would have is somebody honest. Do they have integrity? And are they capable of following the Constitution? That's all that really matters both in the state of New Jersey as well as on the federal level. Thirty-second rebuttal, Mr. Matthewson. I'll go back to what I said before. Litmus test should be for those people who have the intellectual capability of interpreting our Constitution and being able to understand our laws and interpret them and how they apply to each individual case. They should not be in a position of writing new laws. I would use that litmus test that I have used in the Senate in New Jersey. I will use that same litmus test in the U.S. Senate. Herb Jackson, your question now from Mr. Forester. Environmental say that one-third of New Jersey's air pollution comes from old Midwest power plants. When she was Governor Christie Whitman joined the lawsuit to make these plants modernize. And now the Bush administration is promoting a policy that would allow them to keep operating as they are. What should the federal government's role be in protecting air quality? I think the federal government's role should be a lead role in protecting air quality. I happen to think air quality is of immense significance as well as water quality.

Again, as I mentioned earlier in response to one of the other questions, we know a lot more now than we did even 25 years ago about the importance of environmental controls, the importance of environmental purity in terms of having the environment that is healthy and promotes the well-being of our families in New Jersey. I think that there is a lot of discussion that is going on in the Bush administration now about the best mechanism to use to make sure that we attain the standards that are appropriate. I am grateful that Governor Whitman is there and she is very familiar with New Jersey. She is the EPA administrator and I trust that she will be able to grapple with those issues not just on a national level but frankly with New Jersey in mind as well. Senator Allen? I have written a bill on the state level that would make it illegal for anybody in New Jersey to buy energy from any of those dirty plants. The reason I feel that way is that the pollution from those plants in the Midwest and even further comes right to New Jersey. We have been able to track it by satellite. There is not any question about it. We are seeing our asthma rates go up enormously for children and one of the reasons is this terrible pollution comes here to New Jersey.

We need to stop that. Mr. Matthewsson? The prevailing west to New Jersey. We are very crowded state. We obviously have a lot of vehicles on our roads at any given time but at least 30 to 35% of our pollution does come from prevailing western winds from those very same states who have dirty pollutants in the air. We need to make certain that we in Washington, and this is where the federal government does come in, applies the same restrictions that they do in New Jersey to those same power plants in the Midwest. If we don't do that, New Jersey will continue to get those dirty winds across our borders. Mr. Forrester? Again, I would say that I'm pleased that we happen to have a particularly knowledgeable person leading the EPA and is knowledgeable not just about the national interest but New Jersey's interest. I'm confident that we will get the kind of controls that we need to make sure that we minimize the impact of western states on New Jersey's air quality. You'd like to follow up?

Well, I just to make clear, so you're not going to go as far as your two opponents and say that you would work as a senator to make those power plants stop their emissions if the EPA in the federal government doesn't think it should be a policy. Well, what I would do is follow the general principle in terms of what a United States Center for many states should do, and that is to make sure that national interests are respected in order to met our home state would be prosperous. We happen to be in a situation which is unique in that we have somebody who knows New Jersey's interest, namely former governor Whitman. She is in a position to be able to balance those things well in terms of making recommendations. I would support those kinds of recommendations. Harold, your next question. Yes, Mrs. Allen. At one point, it's a legislature, as a legislature, you voted for parental notification when I would mind her six and abortion, but later withheld your support on a similar bill. You've been accused of waffling on this issue, and I wanted to know if you want to use this forum to explain what your position on parental notification is. Thank you. I really appreciate being able to clear the air on that. I voted for parental notification when it came up in our legislature. I supported the bill, and as it turned out, the bill was found to be unconstitutional as it was written.

I voted for it again, and then finally later, somebody came up with an idea of putting a constitutional amendment on parental notification, but the constitutional amendment was very broad and I was concerned as to how it might be applied. There are laws across the country for parental notification that are constitutional. There's one up in Maine, and I would support that, and I think legislation would be the right way to go. I think it's important to say that, you know, on abortion, what we all need to do is to work for fewer abortions, making sure that people choose other ways. I started to do that long before I got involved in the legislature. I headed a group in the state of New Jersey to increase the number of parents who were going to be adopting, and also increase the number of people who would be foster parents. I also have worked- Time has run, and Senator Matthewson. That's all well and good, but had Senator Alan my colleague, and I respect her, had voted yes. We would have parental notification in the state of New Jersey right now.

I think it's appropriate that parents know when their daughters below the age of majority are going to have an abortion. Certainly, when we send our children to school, we have to give parental consent even if they are to take an aspirin. It seems almost heinous to me that parents are not made aware when their child is going to go through an abortion. Your response, Mr. Farrister? I began in my opening statement talking about a story of my family. I happen to think families are the anchor of our society, the anchor of everything that is important. I think it is outrageous that we could even contemplate a situation in which a young woman, a minor, would be taken out deliberately and shrouded in terms of the conversation with their parents at precisely the moment when it's most important. Ms. Allen? Well, actually I did vote for parental notification. Let me say it again very clearly, and my vote in no way has kept us from having it. In fact, we had more than enough votes, and we'll see if it comes up again in this legislature.

parental notification is something that I support. I've said it before. I've voted for it more than once. We just need to find a law that is constitutional and it works. Senator Mathieson, this is to you directly, but it's related to the three of you. At the beginning of the debate, you all said that you would make the tax cut permanent. During the debate, we've heard that we need to clean up superfund sites without reimposing a tax because the money is there, that we need more air marshals, that we need better healthcare, more security, security, safety is paramount. We have to invest more in our cities. Where would you cut federal spending in order to keep a balanced budget? Michael, certainly we know that the federal budget is looming and it continues to grow each and every year. We need to take a very careful look at it to make certain that we are making our appropriations and expenditures very, very importantly. You know, there's the old saying in Washington, pork barreling. Each year, pork barreling has grown tremendously. This year, pork barreling is over a billion dollars. We need to wrestle that. We need to bring it back into line. We need to make certain that the appropriations that we make in Washington are really affecting government and doing the kinds of things that we need to do like air guards on our airports, like making certain that we clean up pollution in our environment.

When we look at this budget very carefully, we will find the opportunities to cut and to make the appropriate appropriations where we need to make the expenditures. Mr. Forester, 30 second response. I would agree. It might happen to think that the inefficiencies in the federal government are legend. And in terms of providing resources that can be reallocated to pay for the priority items that we've talked about, we have plenty of examples of what we can do for that purpose. I would go further and say that one of the things that greatly concerns me is that we don't adequately take into account the import of what these tax cuts are intended to do. These tax cuts are intended to stimulate the economy, which indeed they are, which indeed produce revenue, allowing us to fund the programs which are important. We send more money to Washington from New Jersey than any other state and we're 49th in getting the money back. We need to make sure that we address that. And if you look at how money is wasted, when we send a dollar to Washington, fully 30 cents of it is nibbled off by the bureaucrats before it comes back to us, we need to make sure we get rid of that kind of waste. We need to bring the programs up here and keep them here and make sure that we're able to use all of the dollars for what we need.

Thank you for your opportunity for a rebuttal. You know, we go right back to pork barreling and that's not the way we should do it. And matter of fact, Washington, we send for every dollar and from the state of New Jersey, we get 62 cents back. A lot of people would propose, well, why don't we just get some more money back from Washington? I think what we should do is send less money to Washington, keep it right here in New Jersey, keep it in our own pockets because we can spend our money better than they can. So a question? Yes, Senator Allen, the challenges to senatorial incumbents have been pointing this out for years that we rank 49th or 50 if in tax dollars back. The answer usually is that's because we're a high income state. Is there anything that you can really honestly propose that would change that situation? Absolutely. The first thing that I would do when I got to Washington would be to make sure that the 18.4 cents tax on gasoline in the state of New Jersey that goes to New Jersey. The federal government stays here. Let us use it because when we send it to the federal government, again, the bureaucrats nibble pennies away, nickels away, dimes away. We don't get as much back. Let's keep it here. That's a start. Time is passing quickly in this broadcast and that concludes the questions from our panel of reporters.

We're going to move now to closing statements from each of the candidates. We will begin with Diane Allen, who has one minute. Thank you. Thank you very much. Bob Torres-Cellie is wrong on the issues. He's wrong on character and he's wrong for New Jersey. I believe I'm the strongest Republican to defeat him. On the CNN cable network, they said that I'm the only Republican who can defeat him. I'm a fiscal conservative. I voted to cut taxes more than 40 times and never voted for a tax increase. Bob Torres-Cellie, on the other hand, voted for the largest tax increase in the history of the country. I voted in the legislature for tough new laws on crime and against terrorism. Bob Torres-Cellie, on the other hand, voted to cut funds to the CIA and he voted to do things that really compromised our national security. He's ethically challenged. He's embarrassed us here in New Jersey and I think really Republican candidates need to put forth their income tax returns because ethics have become a very big issue in this campaign. Let's open it up. Let's be transparent. Let people see where the money is coming from, where it's going. That way you can choose to vote for a senator that you know you can trust and that you know you can be proud of.

Mr. Matthewson? Yes, thank you. First let me say to the panel, to the audience, to the viewers at home and everyone, thank you for this opportunity tonight. You know, being a good legislator also means being a good listener. I'm also a fiscal conservative and a social conservative. But being a good listener is very important. For the last 11 years I've represented the people of South Jersey in the Senate and during that time I've had a 215-town meetings. Now, during that time I've had that opportunity to listen before I legislate. I do that because I think it's very important that in a democracy, in a representative form of government, we listen to our constituents before we legislate. If we don't do that, how can we possibly ever represent our constituents? Last year I heard over 100,000 senior citizens in the state of New Jersey cry out because over the last three years they had lost their Medicare choice. The same policies that their neighbors in Pennsylvania, their neighbors in New York all have. But in New Jersey it was cut. Our federal government has subsidized it less for insurance companies so that our Medicare can be provided to our senior citizens in this state.

Well, as a state representative, I traveled to Washington to try to address that problem. I would appreciate your vote. Time is up, Mr. Forster, your closing statement. Thank you, Count. You know, 27 years ago I came to New Jersey with my new bride Andrea and $300 in my pocket. I came from California where I'd been raised by two terrific parents, neither of which went to college and one didn't even finish high school. But they taught me important things about loving God, loving my country and self-reliance and commitment and hard work. I won a scholarship to Harvard. After graduating I came to Princeton Seminary. Andrea and I have raised three terrific kids in town. I've had the privilege of serving at senior levels in state government and mayor of my town and I've built my own business in the past dozen years. Now I'd like to give something back to the community and the state, which has given so much to me. I would like to go to Washington as your United States senator. I would like to stand with President Bush to defend our families and our wallets and our retirements.

I'd like to earn your respect as a United States senator. It is for that reason that I'm running. It is for that reason that I ask for your support. Thank you. Thank you, candidates. We appreciate all of you participating in this broadcast this evening. And that concludes the decision 2002 Republican U.S. Senate debate. I'd like to thank the three candidates for joining us as well as our panel of reporters. I'm Kent Mattahan. Thanks so much for being with us. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.