Complete responses to Deseret News questionnaire:
1) WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE IS THE MAJOR ISSUE IN YOUR RACE? HOW WOULD YOU ADDRESS IT?
The ability to get the job done. Even though my opponent is trying to paint my tenure as a negative, I am working in Congress to forward legislation to address what I believe is the single most important issue facing us: the need to ensure our citizens' future security - our economic security through a fair taxation policy; our international security through strong defense and effective intelligence efforts; our citizens' financial security through efforts to preserve social security and Medicare for now and for generations to come; and, indeed our personal security through strong law enforcement efforts which provide families with the peace of mind that their children are safe in their homes, their schools, and their communities.
2) WHY SHOULD PEOPLE VOTE FOR YOU NOV. 7 INSTEAD OF YOUR OPPONENT?
Three reasons: 1) I share their core values and fundamental beliefs about the role of government; 2) I have a record of accomplishment that demonstrates my ability to get things done for Utah; and 3) I want to continue to apply conservative principles and fiscal responsibility in solving 21st Century problems such as preserving Medicare and Social Security, access to health care and prescription drugs, education, public land management, Internet crime and privacy, and energy. I want to work with President George W. Bush and Congress to beef up and better support our armed forces and to deploy them appropriately only in defense of American interests.
3) SPECIFICALLY DETAIL YOUR STANDS ON FEDERAL GUN CONTROL. DO YOU SUPPORT THE BRADY BILL? DO YOU SUPPORT BACKGROUND CHECKS AT GUN SHOWS? THE GUNS-IN-SCHOOLS INITIATIVE PETITION WILL NOT BE ON THE 2000 UTAH BALLOT. STILL, DO YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THE PETITION?
I firmly believe we should honor and protect the 2nd Amendment as one of the enumerated rights in the Constitution. I see this not so much as a question of arms as much as a question of liberty.
I believe we should have an efficient national instant check system to ensure that those who have abused the privilege of gun ownership are not permitted to buy weapons. Given an instant check system, the 5-day Brady waiting period becomes redundant and ineffective. I have supported an instant check at gun shows, but opposed a 3-day check. A 3-day check would effectively put law-abiding gun show dealers and organizers out of business. That is not fair, and it is not constitutional.
On the guns in schools proposition, I believe that Utahns have a right to decide this issue without federal interference. My objective as Utah's United States Senator would be to keep the federal government out of this debate.
Finally, I firmly believe that the federal government must do a better job of prosecuting violations of the 20,000 gun laws, rules and regulations already on the books. The Clinton-Gore record of gun prosecutions is dismal. If George W. Bush is elected president, I believe gun crimes will plummet as the result of a renewed commitment to go after criminals who use guns in the commission of a crime, not innocent citizens who faithfully abide by the laws.
4) ONE OF THE BIGGEST VOTES THIS YEAR WAS ON CHINA FREE TRADE. DO YOU FAVOR PERMANENT NORMAL TRADE RELATIONS (PNTR) FOR CHINA? WHY?
Yes, for three basic reasons. First, Asia is Utah's fourth largest trade market. Japan alone has bought $500 million worth of Utah goods. As China's economy grows, Utah exporters should have the opportunity to capture part of the expanding Chinese market. Other nations should not get the benefit of economic opportunity in China and not the U.S. or Utah.
Second, PNTR requires China to abide by international trade rules. Without these international "rules of the road," and the World Trade Organization, which serves as the adjudicatory body, there is no redress for U.S. companies who are hurt by trade violations. Under PNTR, Utah's 1,200 informational technology companies, which have so far been at a disadvantage in the Chinese market because of China's poor record of enforcing intellectual property laws, will have a formal means of complaint and resolution.
Finally, I deplore China's abysmal record on human rights. It is still a communist police state. The Clinton-Gore team is wrong to believe China can be converted overnight into a friend. PNTR will not do this. PNTR should not lull America's leaders to sleep. We must remain vigilant when it comes to the Chinese. But, exposure to free markets and trade will provide China with a taste of freedom and prosperity. Once the Chinese people begin to experience the benefits of free enterprise, it will influence the direction of political change that must take place in China as its current regime ages. That is a very worthwhile objective for the future.
5) WHAT STEPS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO END THE DECADES OF DEBATE OVER HOW MUCH UTAH WILDERNESS TO PROTECT? HOW MUCH WILDERNESS DO YOU SUPPORT? DO YOU TEND TO SIDE MORE WITH ENVIRONMENTALISTS, OR MORE WITH RANCHERS, MINERS, AND THOSE WHO WANT MORE OPEN RECREATIONAL USES?
First of all, I do not believe we need another BLM survey of the Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). Every acre has been analyzed over and over. Another survey will not change the fact that there are certain acres that do not have wilderness values according to the Wilderness Act of 1964. These acres ought to be released to multiple use.
Second, I was very impressed with the collaborative effort undertaken in Emery County with regard to protecting the San Rafael Swell. I would like to see this kind of federal-state-local collaboration in settling the wilderness issues. This model for resolving land management issues does not need to pit environmentalists against ranchers, miners, or recreationists. We all want to set-aside actual wilderness; we all want to ensure that there are open spaces for recreation, grazing, and other activities; and, we all recognize that many Utahns earn their living from the land. All of these interests need to be accommodated in the decision-making process. I don't believe people in Washington, D.C., let alone senators from Illinois or representatives from New York, should be initiating wilderness proposals affecting Utah.
6) WHAT, IF ANY, TYPE OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM DO YOU SUPPORT? PLEASE BE SPECIFIC. FOR EXAMPLE, DO YOU FAVOR OR OPPOSE THE MCCAIN-FEINGOLD BILL?
I support campaign finance reform that empowers voters to decide who they should support. I do not favor so-called "reform" that limits the ability of citizens to participate in elections by making donations to the candidates or parties of their choosing.
I have sponsored the "Citizens' Right to Know Act," which would require continuous public disclosure of contributions over $200 on the Internet. This is an easy way for any individual to see who has supported a candidate for office. Voters can decide for themselves if such support is corrupting or confirming. I have also recommended an increase in the limit for individual donations. This limit, which has not been raised since 1974, only increases the relative importance of special interest PACs and soft money. Banning soft money, however, which is the approach favored by McCain-Feingold, is not the answer. To the extent that it takes money for any group or individual to get its message out, a ban or excessive limits on soft money contributions takes us down the slippery slope of limits on free speech.
7) AS THE FEDERAL BUDGET SURPLUS GROWS, WHAT SPECIFICALLY SHOULD BE DONE WITH IT?
Five things: 1) Social Security preservation and Debt Reduction. We need to put the entire Social Security surplus into a "lock box" so that it cannot be used for any other purpose. This, in turn, will reduce our debt since the Social Security trust fund holds so many government IOUs. This is a promise our country made to senior citizens which I want to make sure we keep.
2) Saving Medicare. One of my top priorities is making sure that seniors may continue to rely on the Medicare program, as we promised when it was enacted 35 years ago. There is no avoiding the fact that Medicare is in a precarious financial situation. Congress has insisted on certain stop-gap measures to keep this essential program solvent, but the failure of the Clinton-Gore administration to propose any long-term solutions, means that we must still face this issue. I want to make sure we preserve Medicare for those who are retired today, those who are about to retire, and for future generations. I am also working to make sure that Medicare covers prescription drugs for those who cannot afford them. This is a top priority. There is no question that in a time of budgetary surplus, we should devote some of these funds toward shoring up Medicare and providing coverage for needed medications.
3) National Defense: I want to make sure that our country has a national defense which ranks second to none, and that our troops are adequately supported. It will require additional spending to reverse the alarming reductions in defense spending which have occurred over the last 8 years.
4) Education: Our children are this country's most precious resource, and we should treat them as such. It is clear that our schools need greater resources to hire and support classroom teachers, provide books and materials, and keep up with new technologies. I support increases in federal assistance to states and local schools so that they can better meet their own needs and priorities.
5) Tax Relief. A surplus, by definition, means that the taxpayers paid more than necessary to run the government. I believe over-taxed Utahns deserve a refund. Utahns can use this money in their own pockets to buy what they want and need.
8) WHAT CRITERIA SHOULD BE USED IN APPOINTING A FEDERAL JUDGE? CAN YOU GIVE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF GOOD APPOINTMENTS AND POOR APPOINTMENTS?
The most essential criterion for a judge is his or her ability to interpret the law according to the Constitution and to apply acts of Congress within their plain meaning. Judges should not make law from the bench. Clearly, judges should be of good character and of reasonable intellect. I do not believe in attaching litmus tests to judges. A litmus test suggests that a judge would pre-decide a case based on his or her own views and not listen to the arguments presented by both sides in the case. That is wrong.
Examples of judges I believe have been good appointments are Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia, both appointed by President Reagan. Poor appointments, which I opposed at the time, include Judge Rosemary Barkett and Charles "Bud" Stack. A disastrous Supreme Court appointment would have been Bruce Babbitt. I fought hard to stop President Clinton from naming him to the high court.
9) WHY DO WE NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON DESECRATION OF THE FLAG?
I recognize reasonable people can disagree on this issue. I have fought for an amendment to protect our country's flag basically for one reason: I believe that it is appropriate to single out one symbol - and one symbol only - to stand above protest and political rancor, to represent unity, not discord. Our nation's flag should be that symbol. It drapes the caskets of our fallen servicemen and women. It flies over every embassy, office building, school, and sporting venue. It has recently been flown for our athletes in Sydney, Australia. It is the universal symbol of America's courage, honor, and freedom.
The Supreme Court's rulings have overturned numerous state statutes and one federal statute preventing flag desecration, thus it requires a constitutional amendment to permit states to reinstate their statutes or the Congress to reenact a national statute. I do not believe the flag amendment violates our right of free speech because the First Amendment protects the expression of ideas, it does not protect every form of conduct.
I know many people disagree on this issue. But, it means a lot to many others to safeguard this one American symbol from disrespect and physical desecration.
(EDITOR'S NOTE: As part of the Deseret News survey of candidates, each person seeking public office is allowed one question of their opponent. Here is Scott Howell's question of Orrin Hatch.)
IN YOUR 1976 CAMPAIGN AGAINST SENATOR FRANK MOSS, YOU CRITICIZED THE INORDINATE AMOUNT OF FUNDS THAT (CAME) FROM OUTSIDE UTAH TO YOUR OPPONENT, HIS RIPE AGE (66), AND HIS ABSENCE FROM THE SENATE COMMITTEES THAT MATTER MOST TO UTAH: INTERIOR AND AGRICULTURE COMMITTEES. IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT 80% OF YOUR FUNDS COME FROM OUT OF STATE, YOUR AGE NOW MATCHES MOSS' IN 1976, AND YOU ARE ABSENT FROM THE SENATE'S INTERIOR AND AGRICULTURE COMMITTEES - CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE DRASTIC CHANGE IN YOUR VIEWS?
No change at all. The thrust of my remarks in 1976 was that Senator Moss was out of tune with his Utah constituency - a fact that was amply born out in my subsequent election. One year of service can be too long if the Senator is not acting in the best interests of our home State.
To address your specific assertions: Nearly half of my contributors are from Utah - over 2,000 in fact. I believe my excellent physical condition and vitality are self-evident. No one works harder for Utah's interests than I do. And as far as Committee assignments go, our delegation has worked hard to take assignments which complement each other, so as a whole we have maximum influence over issues of concern to Utah citizens. It is hard to argue that in today's world my second-ranking position on the Finance Committee—which has broad jurisdiction over such important issues as taxes, Medicare, and social security—and my Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee—which considers constitutional questions, oversees the judicial branch which is one third of the government, works against crime and illegal drugs, and preserves property rights, including intellectual property, - it is hard to argue these are not committees that "matter most" to Utah.