Search this site

Reagan’s Fifth Annual Message February 06, 1985 Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Congress, honored guests, and fellow citizens: I come before you to report on the state of our Union, and I'm pleased to report that after 4 years of united effort, the American people have brought forth a nation renewed, stronger, freer, and more secure than before. Four years ago we began to change, forever I hope, our assumptions about government and its place in our lives. Out of that change has come great and robust growth-in our confidence, our economy, and our role in the world. Tonight America is stronger because of the values that we hold dear. We believe faith and freedom must be our guiding stars, for they show us truth, they make us brave, give us hope, and leave us wiser than we were. Our progress began not in Washington, DC, but in the hearts of our families, communities, workplaces, and voluntary groups which, together, are unleashing the invincible spirit of one great nation under God. Four years ago we said we would invigorate our economy by giving people greater freedom and incentives to take risks and letting them keep more of what they earned. We did what we promised, and a great industrial giant is reborn. Tonight we can take pride in 25 straight months of economic growth, the strongest in 34 years; a 3-year inflation average of 3.9 percent, the lowest in 17 years; and 7.3 million new jobs in 2 years, with more of our citizens working than ever before. New freedom in our lives has planted the rich seeds for future success: For an America of wisdom that honors the family, knowing that if [as] the family goes, so goes our civilization; For an America of vision that sees tomorrow's dreams in the learning and hard work we do today; For an America of courage whose service men and women, even as we meet, proudly stand watch on the frontiers of freedom; For an America of compassion that opens its heart to those who cry out for help. We have begun well. But it's only a beginning. We're not here to congratulate ourselves on what we have done but to challenge ourselves to finish what has not yet been done. We're here to speak for millions in our inner cities who long for real jobs, safe neighborhoods, and schools that truly teach. We're here to speak for the American farmer, the entrepreneur, and every worker in industries fighting to modernize and compete. And, yes, we're here to stand, and proudly so, for all who struggle to break free from totalitarianism, for all who know in their hearts that freedom is the one true path to peace and human happiness. Proverbs tell us, without a vision the people perish. When asked what great principle holds our Union together, Abraham Lincoln said: "Something in [the] Declaration giving liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but hope to the world for all future time." We honor the giants of our history not by going back but forward to the dreams their vision foresaw. My fellow citizens, this nation is poised for greatness. The time has come to proceed toward a great new challenge—a second American Revolution of hope and opportunity; a revolution carrying us to new heights of progress by pushing back frontiers of knowledge and space; a revolution of spirit that taps the soul of America, enabling us to summon greater strength than we've ever known; and a revolution that carries beyond our shores the golden promise of human freedom in a world of peace. Let us begin by challenging our conventional wisdom. There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect. Already, pushing down tax rates has freed our economy to vault forward to record growth. In Europe, they're calling it "the American Miracle." Day by day, we're shattering accepted notions of what is possible. When I was growing up, we failed to see how a new thing called radio would transform our marketplace. Well, today, many have not yet seen how advances in technology are transforming our lives. In the late 1950's workers at the AT&T semiconductor plant in Pennsylvania produced five transistors a day for $7.50 apiece. They now produce over a million for less than a penny apiece. New laser techniques could revolutionize heart bypass surgery, cut diagnosis time for viruses linked to cancer from weeks to minutes, reduce hospital costs dramatically, and hold out new promise for saving human lives. Our automobile industry has overhauled assembly lines, increased worker productivity, and is competitive once again. We stand on the threshold of a great ability to produce more, do more, be more. Our economy is not getting older and weaker; it's getting younger and stronger. It doesn't need rest and supervision; it needs new challenge, greater freedom. And that word "freedom" is the key to the second American revolution that we need to bring about. Let us move together with an historic reform of tax simplification for fairness and growth. Last year I asked Treasury Secretary-then-Regan to develop a plan to simplify the tax code, so all taxpayers would be treated more fairly and personal tax rates could come further down. We have cut tax rates by almost 25 percent, yet the tax system remains unfair and limits our potential for growth. Exclusions and exemptions cause similar incomes to be taxed at different levels. Low-income families face steep tax barriers that make hard lives even harder. The Treasury Department has produced an excellent reform plan, whose principles will guide the final proposal that we will ask you to enact. One thing that tax reform will not be is a tax increase in disguise. We will not jeopardize the mortgage interest deduction that families need. We will reduce personal tax rates as low as possible by removing many tax preferences. We will propose a top rate of no more than 35 percent, and possibly lower. And we will propose reducing corporate rates, while maintaining incentives for capital formation. To encourage opportunity and jobs rather than dependency and welfare, we will propose that individuals living at or near the poverty line be totally exempt from Federal income tax. To restore fairness to families, we will propose increasing significantly the personal exemption. And tonight, I am instructing Treasury Secretary James Baker—I have to get used to saying that—to begin working with congressional authors and committees for bipartisan legislation conforming to these principles. We will call upon the American people for support and upon every man and woman in this Chamber. Together, we can pass, this year, a tax bill for fairness, simplicity, and growth, making this economy the engine of our dreams and America the investment capital of the world. So let us begin. Tax simplification will be a giant step toward unleashing the tremendous pent-up power of our economy. But a second American revolution must carry the promise of opportunity for all. It is time to liberate the spirit of enterprise in the most distressed areas of our country. This government will meet its responsibility to help those in need. But policies that increase dependency, break up families, and destroy self-respect are not progressive; they're reactionary. Despite our strides in civil rights, blacks, Hispanics, and all minorities will not have full and equal power until they have full economic power. We have repeatedly sought passage of enterprise zones to help those in the abandoned corners of our land find jobs, learn skills, and build better lives. This legislation is supported by a majority of you. Mr. Speaker, I know we agree that 'there must be no forgotten Americans. Let us place new dreams in a million hearts and create a new generation of entrepreneurs by passing enterprise zones this year. And, Tip, you could make that a birthday present. [Laughter] Nor must we lose the chance to pass our youth employment opportunity wage proposal. We can help teenagers, who have the highest unemployment rate, find summer jobs, so they can know the pride of work and have confidence in their futures. We'll continue to support the Job Training Partnership Act, which has a nearly two-thirds job placement rate. Credits in education and health care vouchers will help working families shop for services that they need. Our administration is already encouraging certain low-income public housing residents to own and manage their own dwellings. It's time that all public housing residents have that opportunity of ownership. The Federal Government can help create a new atmosphere of freedom. But States and localities, many of which enjoy surpluses from the recovery, must not permit their tax and regulatory policies to stand as barriers to growth. Let us resolve that we will stop spreading dependency and start spreading opportunity; that we will stop spreading bondage and start spreading freedom. There are some who say that growth initiatives must await final action on deficit reductions. Well, the best way to reduce deficits is through economic growth. More businesses will be started, more investments made, more jobs created, and more people will be on payrolls paying taxes. The best way to reduce government spending is to reduce the need for spending by increasing prosperity. Each added percentage point per year of real GNP growth will lead to cumulative reduction in deficits of nearly $200 billion over 5 years. To move steadily toward a balanced budget, we must also lighten government's claim on our total economy. We will not do this by raising taxes. We must make sure that our economy grows faster than the growth in spending by the Federal Government. In our fiscal year 1986 budget, overall government program spending will be frozen at the current level. It must not be one dime higher than fiscal year 1985, and three points are key. First, the social safety net for the elderly, the needy, the disabled, and unemployed will be left intact. Growth of our major health care programs, Medicare and Medicaid, will be slowed, but protections for the elderly and needy will be preserved. Second, we must not relax our efforts to restore military strength just as we near our goal of a fully equipped, trained, and ready professional corps. National security is government's first responsibility; so in past years defense spending took about half the Federal budget. Today it takes less than a third. We've already reduced our planned defense expenditures by nearly a hundred billion dollars over the past 4 years and reduced projected spending again this year. You know, we only have a military-industrial complex until a time of danger, and then it becomes the arsenal of democracy. Spending for defense is investing in things that are priceless—peace and freedom. Third, we must reduce or eliminate costly government subsidies. For example, deregulation of the airline industry has led to cheaper airfares, but on Amtrak taxpayers pay about $35 per passenger every time an Amtrak train leaves the station, It's time we ended this huge Federal subsidy. Our farm program costs have quadrupled in recent years. Yet I know from visiting farmers, many in great financial distress, that we need an orderly transition to a market-oriented farm economy. We can help farmers best not by expanding Federal payments but by making fundamental reforms, keeping interest rates heading down, and knocking down foreign trade barriers to American farm exports. We're moving ahead with Grace commission reforms to eliminate waste and improve government's management practices. In the long run, we must protect the taxpayers from government. And I ask again that you pass, as 32 States have now called for, an amendment mandating the Federal Government spend no more than it takes in. And I ask for the authority, used responsibly by 43 Governors, to veto individual items in appropriation bills. Senator Mattingly has introduced a bill permitting a 2-year trial run of the line-item veto. I hope you'll pass and send that legislation to my desk. Nearly 50 years of government living beyond its means has brought us to a time of reckoning. Ours is but a moment in history. But one moment of courage, idealism, and bipartisan unity can change American history forever. Sound monetary policy is key to long-running economic strength and stability. We will continue to cooperate with the Federal Reserve Board, seeking a steady policy that ensures price stability without keeping interest rates artificially high or needlessly holding down growth. Reducing unneeded red tape and regulations, and deregulating the energy, transportation, and financial industries have unleashed new competition, giving consumers more choices, better services, and lower prices. In just one set of grant programs we have reduced 905 pages of regulations to 31. We seek to fully deregulate natural gas to bring on new supplies and bring us closer to energy independence. Consistent with safety standards, we will continue removing restraints on the bus and railroad industries, we will soon end up legislation—or send up legislation, I should say—to return Conrail to the private sector where it belongs, and we will support further deregulation of the trucking industry. Every dollar the Federal Government does not take from us, every decision it does not make for us will make our economy stronger, our lives more abundant, our future more free. Our second American revolution will push on to new possibilities not only on Earth but in the next frontier of space. Despite budget restraints, we will seek record funding for research and development. We've seen the success of the space shuttle. Now we're going to develop a permanently manned space station and new opportunities for free enterprise, because in the next decade Americans and our friends around the world will be living and working together in space. In the zero gravity of space, we could manufacture in 30 days lifesaving medicines it would take 30 years to make on Earth. We can make crystals of exceptional purity to produce super computers, creating jobs, technologies, and medical breakthroughs beyond anything we ever dreamed possible. As we do all this, we'll continue to protect our natural resources. We will seek reauthorization and expanded funding for the Superfund program to continue cleaning up hazardous waste sites which threaten human health and the environment. Now, there's another great heritage to speak of this evening. Of all the changes that have swept America the past 4 years, none brings greater promise than our rediscovery of the values of faith, freedom, family, work, and neighborhood. We see signs of renewal in increased attendance in places of worship; renewed optimism and faith in our future; love of country rediscovered by our young, who are leading the way. We've rediscovered that work is good in and of itself, that it ennobles us to create and contribute no matter how seemingly humble our jobs. We've seen a powerful new current from an old and honorable tradition—American generosity. From thousands answering Peace Corps appeals to help boost food production in Africa, to millions volunteering time, corporations adopting schools, and communities pulling together to help the neediest among us at home, we have refound our values. Private sector initiatives are crucial to our future. I thank the Congress for passing equal access legislation giving religious groups the same right to use classrooms after school that other groups enjoy. But no citizen need tremble, nor the world shudder, if a child stands in a classroom and breathes a prayer. We ask you again, give children back a right they had for a century and a half or more in this country. The question of abortion grips our nation. Abortion is either the taking of a human life or it isn't. And if it is—and medical technology is increasingly showing it is—it must be stopped. It is a terrible irony that while some turn to abortion, so many others who cannot become parents cry out for children to adopt. We have room for these children. We can fill the cradles of those who want a child to love. And tonight I ask you in the Congress to move this year on legislation to protect the unborn. In the area of education, we're returning to excellence, and again, the heroes are our people, not government. We're stressing basics of discipline, rigorous testing, and homework, while helping children become computer-smart as well. For 20 years scholastic aptitude test scores of our high school students went down, but now they have gone up 2 of the last 3 years. We must go forward in our commitment to the new basics, giving parents greater authority and making sure good teachers are rewarded for hard work and achievement through merit pay. Of all the changes in the past 20 years, none has more threatened our sense of national well-being than the explosion of violent crime. One does not have to be attacked to be a victim. The woman who must run to her car after shopping at night is a victim. The couple draping their door with locks and chains are victims; as is the tired, decent cleaning woman who can't ride a subway home without being afraid. We do not seek to violate the rights of defendants. But shouldn't we feel more compassion for the victims of crime than for those who commit crime? For the first time in 20 years, the crime index has fallen 2 years in a row. We've convicted over 7,400 drug offenders and put them, as well as leaders of organized crime, behind bars in record numbers. But we must do more. I urge the House to follow the Senate and enact proposals permitting use of all reliable evidence that police officers acquire in good faith. These proposals would also reform the habeas corpus laws and allow, in keeping with the will of the overwhelming majority of Americans, the use of the death penalty where necessary. There can be no economic revival in ghettos when the most violent among us are allowed to roam free. It's time we restored domestic tranquility. And we mean to do just that. Just as we're positioned as never before to secure justice in our economy, we're poised as never before to create a safer, freer, more peaceful world. Our alliances are stronger than ever. Our economy is stronger than ever. We have resumed our historic role as a leader of the free world. And all of these together are a great force for peace. Since 1981 we've been committed to seeking fair and verifiable arms agreements that would lower the risk of war and reduce the size of nuclear arsenals. Now our determination to maintain a strong defense has influenced the Soviet Union to return to the bargaining table. Our negotiators must be able to go to that table with the united support of the American people. All of us have no greater dream than to see the day when nuclear weapons are banned from this Earth forever. Each Member of the Congress has a role to play in modernizing our defenses, thus supporting our chances for a meaningful arms agreement. Your vote this spring on the Peacekeeper missile will be a critical test of our resolve to maintain the strength we need and move toward mutual and verifiable arms reductions. For the past 20 years we've believed that no war will be launched as long as each side knows it can retaliate with a deadly counterstrike. Well, I believe there's a better way of eliminating the threat of nuclear war. It is a Strategic Defense Initiative aimed ultimately at finding a nonnuclear defense against ballistic missiles. It's the most hopeful possibility of the nuclear age. But it's not very well understood. Some say it will bring war to the heavens, but its purpose is to deter war in the heavens and on Earth. Now, some say the research would be expensive. Perhaps, but it could save millions of lives, indeed humanity itself. And some say if we build such a system, the Soviets will build a defense system of their own. Well, they already have strategic defenses that surpass ours; a civil defense system, where we have almost none; and a research program covering roughly the same areas of technology that we're now exploring. And finally some say the research will take a long time. Well, the answer to that is: Let's get started. Harry Truman once said that, ultimately, our security and the world's hopes for peace and human progress "lie not in measures of defense or in the control of weapons, but in the growth and expansion of freedom and self-government." And tonight, we declare anew to our fellow citizens of the world: Freedom is not the sole prerogative of a chosen few; it is the universal right of all God's children. Look to where peace and prosperity flourish today. It is in homes that freedom built. Victories against poverty are greatest and peace most secure where people live by laws that ensure free press, free speech, and freedom to worship, vote, and create wealth. Our mission is to nourish and defend freedom and democracy, and to communicate these ideals everywhere we can. America's economic success is freedom's success; it can be repeated a hundred times in a hundred different nations. Many countries in east Asia and the Pacific have few resources other than the enterprise of their own people. But through low tax rates and free markets they've soared ahead of centralized economies. And now China is opening up its economy to meet its needs. We need a stronger and simpler approach to the process of making and implementing trade policy, and we'll be studying potential changes in that process in the next few weeks. We've seen the benefits of free trade and lived through the disasters of protectionism. Tonight I ask all our trading partners, developed and developing alike, to join us in a new round of trade negotiations to expand trade and competition and strengthen the global economy—and to begin it in this next year. There are more than 3 billion human beings living in Third World countries with an average per capita income of $650 a year. Many are victims of dictatorships that impoverished them with taxation and corruption. Let us ask our allies to join us in a practical program of trade and assistance that fosters economic development through personal incentives to help these people climb from poverty on their own. We cannot play innocents abroad in a world that's not innocent; nor can we be passive when freedom is under siege. Without resources, diplomacy cannot succeed. Our security assistance programs help friendly governments defend themselves and give them confidence to work for peace. And I hope that you in the Congress will understand that, dollar for dollar, security assistance contributes as much to global security as our own defense budget. We must stand by all our democratic allies. And we must not break faith with those who are risking their lives—on every continent, from Afghanistan to Nicaragua—to defy Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth. The Sandinista dictatorship of Nicaragua, with full Cuban-Soviet bloc support, not only persecutes its people, the church, and denies a free press, but arms and provides bases for Communist terrorists attacking neighboring states. Support for freedom fighters is self-defense and totally consistent with the OAS and U.N. Charters. It is essential that the Congress continue all facets of our assistance to Central America. I want to work with you to support the democratic forces whose struggle is tied to our own security. And tonight, I've spoken of great plans and great dreams. They're dreams we can make come true. Two hundred years of American history should have taught us that nothing is impossible. Ten years ago a young girl left Vietnam with her family, part of the exodus that followed the fall of Saigon. They came to the United States with no possessions and not knowing a word of English. Ten years ago—the young girl studied hard, learned English, and finished high school in the top of her class. And this May, May 22d to be exact, is a big date on her calendar. Just 10 years from the time she left Vietnam, she will graduate from the United States Military Academy at West Point. I thought you might like to meet an American hero named Jean Nguyen. Now, there's someone else here tonight, born 79 years ago. She lives in the inner city, where she cares for infants born of mothers who are heroin addicts. The children, born in withdrawal, are sometimes even dropped on her doorstep. She helps them with love. Go to her house some night, and maybe you'll see her silhouette against the window as she walks the floor talking softly, soothing a child in her arms-Mother Hale of Harlem, and she, too, is an American hero. Jean, Mother Hale, your lives tell us that the oldest American saying is new again: Anything is possible in America if we have the faith, the will, and the heart. History is asking us once again to be a force for good in the world. Let us begin in unity, with justice, and love. Thank you, and God bless you. Source: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-before-joint-session-the-congress-the-state-the-union-5

PRESIDENT JOHN KENNEDY'S RICE STADIUM MOON SPEECH President Pitzer, Mr. Vice President, Governor, Congressman Thomas, Senator Wiley, and Congressman Miller, Mr. Webb, Mr. Bell, scientists, distinguished guests, and ladies and gentlemen: I appreciate your president having made me an honorary visiting professor, and I will assure you that my first lecture will be very brief. I am delighted to be here, and I'm particularly delighted to be here on this occasion. We meet at a college noted for knowledge, in a city noted for progress, in a State noted for strength, and we stand in need of all three, for we meet in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds. Despite the striking fact that most of the scientists that the world has ever known are alive and working today, despite the fact that this Nation¹s own scientific manpower is doubling every 12 years in a rate of growth more than three times that of our population as a whole, despite that, the vast stretches of the unknown and the unanswered and the unfinished still far outstrip our collective comprehension. No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the 50,000 years of man¹s recorded history in a time span of but a half-century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only five years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than two years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than two months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power. Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now if America's new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight. This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old, new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the opening vistas of space promise high costs and hardships, as well as high reward. So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But this city of Houston, this State of Texas, this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward--and so will space. William Bradford, speaking in 1630 of the founding of the Plymouth Bay Colony, said that all great and honorable actions are accompanied with great difficulties, and both must be enterprised and overcome with answerable courage. If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space. Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding. Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation. We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours. There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency. In the last 24 hours we have seen facilities now being created for the greatest and most complex exploration in man's history. We have felt the ground shake and the air shattered by the testing of a Saturn C-1 booster rocket, many times as powerful as the Atlas which launched John Glenn, generating power equivalent to 10,000 automobiles with their accelerators on the floor. We have seen the site where the F-1 rocket engines, each one as powerful as all eight engines of the Saturn combined, will be clustered together to make the advanced Saturn missile, assembled in a new building to be built at Cape Canaveral as tall as a 48 story structure, as wide as a city block, and as long as two lengths of this field. Within these last 19 months at least 45 satellites have circled the earth. Some 40 of them were "made in the United States of America" and they were far more sophisticated and supplied far more knowledge to the people of the world than those of the Soviet Union. The Mariner spacecraft now on its way to Venus is the most intricate instrument in the history of space science. The accuracy of that shot is comparable to firing a missile from Cape Canaveral and dropping it in this stadium between the the 40-yard lines. Transit satellites are helping our ships at sea to steer a safer course. Tiros satellites have given us unprecedented warnings of hurricanes and storms, and will do the same for forest fires and icebergs. We have had our failures, but so have others, even if they do not admit them. And they may be less public. To be sure, we are behind, and will be behind for some time in manned flight. But we do not intend to stay behind, and in this decade, we shall make up and move ahead. The growth of our science and education will be enriched by new knowledge of our universe and environment, by new techniques of learning and mapping and observation, by new tools and computers for industry, medicine, the home as well as the school. Technical institutions, such as Rice, will reap the harvest of these gains. And finally, the space effort itself, while still in its infancy, has already created a great number of new companies, and tens of thousands of new jobs. Space and related industries are generating new demands in investment and skilled personnel, and this city and this State, and this region, will share greatly in this growth. What was once the furthest outpost on the old frontier of the West will be the furthest outpost on the new frontier of science and space. Houston, your City of Houston, with its Manned Spacecraft Center, will become the heart of a large scientific and engineering community. During the next 5 years the National Aeronautics and Space Administration expects to double the number of scientists and engineers in this area, to increase its outlays for salaries and expenses to $60 million a year; to invest some $200 million in plant and laboratory facilities; and to direct or contract for new space efforts over $1 billion from this Center in this City. To be sure, all this costs us all a good deal of money. This year¹s space budget is three times what it was in January 1961, and it is greater than the space budget of the previous eight years combined. That budget now stands at $5,400 million a year--a staggering sum, though somewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year. Space expenditures will soon rise some more, from 40 cents per person per week to more than 50 cents a week for every man, woman and child in the United States, for we have given this program a high national priority--even though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for we do not now know what benefits await us. But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun--almost as hot as it is here today--and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out--then we must be bold. I'm the one who is doing all the work, so we just want you to stay cool for a minute. [laughter] However, I think we're going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I don't think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job. And this will be done in the decade of the sixties. It may be done while some of you are still here at school at this college and university. It will be done during the term of office of some of the people who sit here on this platform. But it will be done. And it will be done before the end of this decade. I am delighted that this university is playing a part in putting a man on the moon as part of a great national effort of the United States of America. Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, "Because it is there." Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked. Thank you. Source: https://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm

Reagan’s Fourth Annual Message January 25, 1984 Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Congress, honored guests, and fellow citizens: Once again, in keeping with time-honored tradition, I have come to report to you on the state of the Union, and I'm pleased to report that America is much improved, and there's good reason to believe that improvement will continue through the days to come. You and I have had some honest and open differences in the year past. But they didn't keep us from joining hands in bipartisan cooperation to stop a long decline that had drained this nation's spirit and eroded its health. There is renewed energy and optimism throughout the land. America is back, standing tall, looking to the eighties with courage, confidence, and hope. The problems we're overcoming are not the heritage of one person, party, or even one generation. It's just the tendency of government to grow, for practices and programs to become the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth. [Laughter] And there's always that well-intentioned chorus of voices saying, "With a little more power and a little more money, we could do so much for the people." For a time we forgot the American dream isn't one of making government bigger; it's keeping faith with the mighty spirit of free people under God. As we came to the decade of the eighties, we faced the worst crisis in our postwar history. In the seventies were years of rising problems and falling confidence. There was a feeling government had grown beyond the consent of the governed. Families felt helpless in the face of mounting inflation and the indignity of taxes that reduced reward for hard work, thrift, and risktaking. All this was overlaid by an evergrowing web of rules and regulations. On the international scene, we had an uncomfortable feeling that we'd lost the respect of friend and foe. Some questioned whether we had the will to defend peace and freedom. But America is too great for small dreams. There was a hunger in the land for a spiritual revival; if you will, a crusade for renewal. The American people said: Let us look to the future with confidence, both at home and abroad. Let us give freedom a chance. Americans were ready to make a new beginning, and together we have done it. We're confronting our problems one by one. Hope is alive tonight for millions of young families and senior citizens set free from unfair tax increases and crushing inflation. Inflation has been beaten down from 12.4 to 3.2 percent, and that's a great victory for all the people. The prime rate has been cut almost in half, and we must work together to bring it down even more. Together, we passed the first across-the-board tax reduction for everyone since the Kennedy tax cuts. Next year, tax rates will be indexed so inflation can't push people into higher brackets when they get cost-of-living pay raises. Government must never again use inflation to profit at the people's expense. Today a working family earning $25,000 has $1,100 more in purchasing power than if tax and inflation rates were still at the 1980 levels. Real after-tax income increased 5 percent last year. And economic deregulation of key industries like transportation has offered more chances—or choices, I should say, to consumers and new changes—or chances for entrepreneurs and protecting safety. Tonight, we can report and be proud of one of the best recoveries in decades. Send away the handwringers and the doubting Thomases. Hope is reborn for couples dreaming of owning homes and for risktakers with vision to create tomorrow's opportunities. The spirit of enterprise is sparked by the sunrise industries of high-tech and by small business people with big ideas—people like Barbara Proctor, who rose from a ghetto to build a multimillion-dollar advertising agency in Chicago; Carlos Perez, a Cuban refugee, who turned $27 and a dream into a successful importing business in Coral Gables, Florida. People like these are heroes for the eighties. They helped 4 million Americans find jobs in 1983. More people are drawing paychecks tonight than ever before. And Congress helps—or progress helps everyone-well, Congress does too— [laughter] —-everyone. In 1983 women filled 73 percent of all the new jobs in managerial, professional, and technical fields. But we know that many of our fellow countrymen are still out of work, wondering what will come of their hopes and dreams. Can we love America and not reach out to tell them: You are not forgotten; we will not rest until each of you can reach as high as your God-given talents will take you. The heart of America is strong; it's good and true. The cynics were wrong; America never was a sick society. We're seeing rededication to bedrock values of faith, family, work, neighborhood, peace, and freedom—values that help bring us together as one people, from the youngest child to the most senior citizen. The Congress deserves America's thanks for helping us restore pride and credibility to our military. And I hope that you're as proud as I am of the young men and women in uniform who have volunteered to man the ramparts in defense of freedom and whose dedication, valor, and skill increases so much our chance of living in a world at peace. People everywhere hunger for peace and a better life. The tide of the future is a freedom tide, and our struggle for democracy cannot and will not be denied. This nation champions peace that enshrines liberty, democratic rights, and dignity for every individual. America's new strength, confidence, and purpose are carrying hope and opportunity far from our shores. A world economic recovery is underway. It began here. We've journeyed far, but we have much farther to go. Franklin Roosevelt told us 50 years ago this month: "Civilization can not go back; civilization must not stand still. We have undertaken new methods. It is our task to perfect, to improve, to alter when necessary, but in all cases to go forward." It's time to move forward again, time for America to take freedom's next step. Let us unite tonight behind four great goals to keep America free, secure, and at peace in the eighties together. We can ensure steady economic growth. We can develop America's next frontier. We can strengthen our traditional values. And we can build a meaningful peace to protect our loved ones and this shining star of faith that has guided millions from tyranny to the safe harbor of freedom, progress, and hope. Doing these things will open wider the gates of opportunity, provide greater security for all, with no barriers of bigotry or discrimination. The key to a dynamic decade is vigorous economic growth, our first great goal. We might well begin with common sense in Federal budgeting: government spending no more than government takes in. We must bring Federal deficits down. But how we do that makes all the difference. We can begin by limiting the size and scope of government. Under the leadership of Vice President Bush, we have reduced the growth of Federal regulations by more than 25 percent and cut well over 300 million hours of government-required paperwork each year. This will save the public more than $150 billion over the next 10 years. The Grace commission has given us some 2,500 recommendations for reducing wasteful spending, and they're being examined throughout the administration. Federal spending growth has been cut from 17.4 percent in 1980 to less than half of that today, and we have already achieved over $300 billion in budget savings for the period of 1982 to '86. But that's only a little more than half of what we sought. Government is still spending too large a percentage of the total economy. Now, some insist that any further budget savings must be obtained by reducing the portion spent on defense. This ignores the fact that national defense is solely the responsibility of the Federal Government; indeed, it is its prime responsibility. And yet defense spending is less than a third of the total budget. During the years of President Kennedy and of the years before that, defense was almost half the total budget. And then came several years in which our military capability was allowed to deteriorate to a very dangerous degree. We are just now restoring, through the essential modernization of our conventional and strategic forces, our capability to meet our present and future security needs. We dare not shirk our responsibility to keep America free, secure, and at peace. The last decade saw domestic spending surge literally out of control. But the basis for such spending had been laid in previous years. A pattern of overspending has been in place for half a century. As the national debt grew, we were told not to worry, that we owed it to ourselves. Now we know that deficits are a cause for worry. But there's a difference of opinion as to whether taxes should be increased, spending cut, or some of both. Fear is expressed that government borrowing to fund the deficit could inhibit the economic recovery by taking capital needed for business and industrial expansion. Well, I think that debate is missing an important point. Whether government borrows or increases taxes, it will be taking the same amount of money from the private sector, and, either way, that's too much. Simple fairness dictates that government must not raise taxes on families struggling to pay their bills. The root of the problem is that government's share is more than we can afford if we're to have a sound economy. We must bring down the deficits to ensure continued economic growth. In the budget that I will submit on February 1st, I will recommend measures that will reduce the deficit over the next 5 years. Many of these will be unfinished business from last year's budget. Some could be enacted quickly if we could join in a serious effort to address this problem. I spoke today with Speaker of the House O'Neill, Senate Majority Leader Baker, Senate Minority Leader Byrd, and House Minority Leader Michel. I asked them if they would designate congressional representatives to meet with representatives of the administration to try to reach prompt agreement on a bipartisan deficit reduction plan. I know it would take a long, hard struggle to agree on a full-scale plan. So, what I have proposed is that we first see if we can agree on a down payment. Now, I believe there is basis for such an agreement, one that could reduce the deficits by about a hundred billion dollars over the next 3 years. We could focus on some of the less contentious spending cuts that are still pending before the Congress. These could be combined with measures to close certain tax loopholes, measures that the Treasury Department has previously said to be worthy of support. In addition, we could examine the possibility of achieving further outlay savings based on the work of the Grace commission. If the congressional leadership is willing, my representatives will be prepared to meet with theirs at the earliest possible time. I would hope the leadership might agree on an expedited timetable in which to develop and enact that down payment. But a down payment alone is not enough to break us out of the deficit problem. It could help us start on the right path. Yet, we must do more. So, I propose that we begin exploring how together we can make structural reforms to curb the built-in growth of spending. I also propose improvements in the budgeting process. Some 43 of our 50 States grant their Governors the right to veto individual items in appropriation bills without having to veto the entire bill. California is one of those 43 States. As Governor, I found this line-item veto was a powerful tool against wasteful or extravagant spending. It works in 43 States. Let's put it to work in Washington for all the people. It would be most effective if done by constitutional amendment. The majority of Americans approve of such an amendment, just as they and I approve of an amendment mandating a balanced Federal budget. Many States also have this protection in their constitutions. To talk of meeting the present situation by increasing taxes is a Band-Aid solution which does nothing to cure an illness that's been coming on for half a century—to say nothing of the fact that it poses a real threat to economic recovery. Let's remember that a substantial amount of income tax is presently owed and not paid by people in the underground economy. It would be immoral to make those who are paying taxes pay more to compensate for those who aren't paying their share. There's a better way. Let us go forward with an historic reform for fairness, simplicity, and incentives for growth. I am asking Secretary Don Regan for a plan for action to simplify the entire tax code, so all taxpayers, big and small, are treated more fairly. And I believe such a plan could result in that underground economy being brought into the sunlight of honest tax compliance. And it could make the tax base broader, so personal tax rates could come down, not go up. I've asked that specific recommendations, consistent with those objectives, be presented to me by December 1984. Our second great goal is to build on America's pioneer spirit— [laughter] —I said something funny? [Laughter] I said America's next frontier—and that's to develop that frontier. A sparkling economy spurs initiatives, sunrise industries, and makes older ones more competitive. Nowhere is this more important than our next frontier: space. Nowhere do we so effectively demonstrate our technological leadership and ability to make life better on Earth. The Space Age is barely a quarter of a century old. But already we've pushed civilization forward with our advances in science and technology. Opportunities and jobs will multiply as we cross new thresholds of knowledge and reach deeper into the unknown. Our progress in space—taking giant steps for all mankind—is a tribute to American teamwork and excellence. Our finest minds in government, industry, and academia have all pulled together. And we can be proud to say: We are first; we are the best; and we are so because we're free. America has always been greatest when we dared to be great. We can reach for greatness again. We can follow our dreams to distant stars, living and working in space for peaceful, economic, and scientific gain. Tonight, I am directing NASA to develop a permanently manned space station and to do it within a decade. A space station will permit quantum leaps in our research in science, communications, in metals, and in lifesaving medicines which could be manufactured only in space. We want our friends to help us meet these challenges and share in their benefits. NASA will invite other countries to participate so we can strengthen peace, build prosperity, and expand freedom for all who share our goals. Just as the oceans opened up a new world for clipper ships and Yankee traders, space holds enormous potential for commerce today. The market for space transportation could surpass our capacity to develop it. Companies interested in putting payloads into space must have ready access to private sector launch services. The Department of Transportation will help an expendable launch services industry to get off the ground. We'll soon implement a number of executive initiatives, develop proposals to ease regulatory constraints, and, with NASA's help, promote private sector investment in space. And as we develop the frontier of space, let us remember our responsibility to preserve our older resources here on Earth. Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative challenge, it's common sense. Though this is a time of budget constraints, I have requested for EPA one of the largest percentage budget increases of any agency. We will begin the long, necessary effort to clean up a productive recreational area and a special national resource—the Chesapeake Bay. To reduce the threat posed by abandoned hazardous waste dumps, EPA will spend $410 million. And I will request a supplemental increase of 50 million. And because the Superfund law expires in 1985, I've asked Bill Ruckelshaus to develop a proposal for its extension so there'll be additional time to complete this important task. On the question of acid rain, which concerns people in many areas of the United States and Canada, I'm proposing a research program that doubles our current funding. And we'll take additional action to restore our lakes and develop new technology to reduce pollution that causes acid rain. We have greatly improved the conditions of our natural resources. We'll ask the Congress for $157 million beginning in 1985 to acquire new park and conservation lands. The Department of the Interior will encourage careful, selective exploration and production on our vital resources in an Exclusive Economic Zone within the 200-mile limit off our coasts—but with strict adherence to environmental laws and with fuller State and public participation. But our most precious resources, our greatest hope for the future, are the minds and hearts of our people, especially our children. We can help them build tomorrow by strengthening our community of shared values. This must be our third great goal. For us, faith, work, family, neighborhood, freedom, and peace are not just words; they're expressions of what America means, definitions of what makes us a good and loving people. Families stand at the center of our society. And every family has a personal stake in promoting excellence in education. Excellence does not begin in Washington. A 600-percent increase in Federal spending on education between 1960 and 1980 was accompanied by a steady decline in Scholastic Aptitude Test scores. Excellence must begin in our homes and neighborhood schools, where it's the responsibility of every parent and teacher and the right of every child. Our children come first, and that's why I established a bipartisan National Commission on Excellence in Education, to help us chart a commonsense course for better education. And already, communities are implementing the Commission's recommendations. Schools are reporting progress in math and reading skills. But we must do more to restore discipline to schools; and we must encourage the teaching of new basics, reward teachers of merit, enforce tougher standards, and put our parents back in charge. I will continue to press for tuition tax credits to expand opportunities for families and to soften the double payment for those paying public school taxes and private school tuition. Our proposal would target assistance to low- and middle-income families. Just as more incentives are needed within our schools, greater competition is needed among our schools. Without standards and competition, there can be no champions, no records broken, no excellence in education or any other walk of life. And while I'm on this subject, each day your Members observe a 200-year-old tradition meant to signify America is one nation under God. I must ask: If you can begin your day with a member of the clergy standing right here leading you in prayer, then why can't freedom to acknowledge God be enjoyed again by children in every schoolroom across this land? America was founded by people who believed that God was their rock of safety. He is ours. I recognize we must be cautious in claiming that God is on our side, but I think it's all right to keep asking if we're on His side. During our first 3 years, we have joined bipartisan efforts to restore protection of the law to unborn children. Now, I know this issue is very controversial. But unless and until it can be proven that an unborn child is not a living human being, can we justify assuming without proof that it isn't? No one has yet offered such proof; indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary. We should rise above bitterness and reproach, and if Americans could come together in a spirit of understanding and helping, then we could find positive solutions to the tragedy of abortion. Economic recovery, better education, rededication to values, all show the spirit of renewal gaining the upper hand. And all will improve family life in the eighties. But families need more. They need assurance that they and their loved ones can walk the streets of America without being afraid. Parents need to know their children will not be victims of child pornography and abduction. This year we will intensify our drive against these and other horrible crimes like sexual abuse and family violence. Already our efforts to crack down on career criminals, organized crime, drugpushers, and to enforce tougher sentences and paroles are having effect. In 1982 the crime rate dropped by 4.3 percent, the biggest decline since 1972. Protecting victims is just as important as safeguarding the rights of defendants. Opportunities for all Americans will increase if we move forward in fair housing and work to ensure women's rights, provide for equitable treatment in pension benefits and Individual Retirement Accounts, facilitate child care, and enforce delinquent parent support payments. It's not just the home but the workplace and community that sustain our values and shape our future. So, I ask your help in assisting more communities to break the bondage of dependency. Help us to free enterprise by permitting debate and voting "yes" on our proposal for enterprise zones in America. This has been before you for 2 years. Its passage can help high-unemployment areas by creating jobs and restoring neighborhoods. A society bursting with opportunities, reaching for its future with confidence, sustained by faith, fair play, and a conviction that good and courageous people will flourish when they're free—these are the secrets of a strong and prosperous America at peace with itself and the world. A lasting and meaningful peace is our fourth great goal. It is our highest aspiration. And our record is clear: Americans resort to force only when we must. We have never been aggressors. We have always struggled to defend freedom and democracy. We have no territorial ambitions. We occupy no countries. We build no walls to lock people in. Americans build the future. And our vision of a better life for farmers, merchants, and working people, from the Americas to Asia, begins with a simple premise: The future is best decided by ballots, not bullets. Governments which rest upon the consent of the governed do not wage war on their neighbors. Only when people are given a personal stake in deciding their own destiny, benefiting from their own risks, do they create societies that are prosperous, progressive, and free. Tonight, it is democracies that offer hope by feeding the hungry, prolonging life, and eliminating drudgery. When it comes to keeping America strong, free, and at peace, there should be no Republicans or Democrats, just patriotic Americans. We can decide the tough issues not by who is right, but by what is right. Together, we can continue to advance our agenda for peace. We can establish a more stable basis for peaceful relations with the Soviet Union; strengthen allied relations across the board; achieve real and equitable reductions in the levels of nuclear arms; reinforce our peacemaking efforts in the Middle East, Central America, and southern Africa; or assist developing countries, particularly our neighbors in the Western Hemisphere; and assist in the development of democratic institutions throughout the world. The wisdom of our bipartisan cooperation was seen in the work of the Scowcroft commission, which strengthened our ability to deter war and protect peace. In that same spirit, I urge you to move forward with the Henry Jackson plan to implement the recommendations of the Bipartisan Commission on Central America. Your joint resolution on the multinational peacekeeping force in Lebanon is also serving the cause of peace. We are making progress in Lebanon. For nearly 10 years, the Lebanese have lived from tragedy to tragedy with no hope for their future. Now the multinational peacekeeping force and our marines are helping them break their cycle of despair. There is hope for a free, independent, and sovereign Lebanon. We must have the courage to give peace a chance. And we must not be driven from our objectives for peace in Lebanon by state-sponsored terrorism. We have seen this ugly specter in Beirut, Kuwait, and Rangoon. It demands international attention. I will forward shortly legislative proposals to help combat terrorism. And I will be seeking support from our allies for concerted action. Our NATO alliance is strong. 1983 was a banner year for political courage. And we have strengthened our partnerships and our friendships in the Far East. We're committed to dialog, deterrence, and promoting prosperity. We'll work with our trading partners for a new round of negotiations in support of freer world trade, greater competition, and more open markets. A rebirth of bipartisan cooperation, of economic growth, and military deterrence, and a growing spirit of unity among our people at home and our allies abroad underline a fundamental and far-reaching change: The United States is safer, stronger, and more secure in 1984 than before. We can now move with confidence to seize the opportunities for peace, and we will. Tonight, I want to speak to the people of the Soviet Union, to tell them it's true that our governments have had serious differences, but our sons and daughters have never fought each other in war. And if we Americans have our way, they never will. People of the Soviet Union, there is only one sane policy, for your country and mine, to preserve our civilization in this modern age: A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely? People of the Soviet, President Dwight Eisenhower, who fought by your side in World War II, said the essential struggle "is not merely man against man or nation against nation. It is man against war." Americans are people of peace. If your government wants peace, there will be peace. We can come together in faith and friendship to build a safer and far better world for our children and our children's children. And the whole world will rejoice. That is my message to you. Some days when life seems hard and we reach out for values to sustain us or a friend to help us, we find a person who reminds us what it means to be Americans. Sergeant Stephen Trujillo, a medic in the 2d Ranger Battalion, 75th Infantry, was in the first helicopter to land at the compound held by Cuban forces in Grenada. He saw three other helicopters crash. Despite the imminent explosion of the burning aircraft, he never hesitated. He ran across 25 yards of open terrain through enemy fire to rescue wounded soldiers. He directed two other medics, administered first aid, and returned again and again to the crash site to carry his wounded friends to safety. Sergeant Trujillo, you and your fellow service men and women not only saved innocent lives; you set a nation free. You inspire us as a force for freedom, not for despotism; and, yes, for peace, not conquest. God bless you. And then there are unsung heroes: single parents, couples, church and civic volunteers. Their hearts carry without complaint the pains of family and community problems. They soothe our sorrow, heal our wounds, calm our fears, and share our joy. A person like Father Ritter is always there. His Covenant House programs in New York and Houston provide shelter and help to thousands of frightened and abused children each year. The same is true of Dr. Charles Carson. Paralyzed in a plane crash, he still believed nothing is impossible. Today in Minnesota, he works 80 hours a week without pay, helping pioneer the field of computer-controlled walking. He has given hope to 500,000 paralyzed Americans that some day they may walk again. How can we not believe in the greatness of America? How can we not do what is right and needed to preserve this last best hope of man on Earth? After all our struggles to restore America, to revive confidence in our country, hope for our future, after all our hard-won victories earned through the patience and courage of every citizen, we cannot, must not, and will not turn back. We will finish our job. How could we do less? We're Americans. Carl Sandburg said, "I see America not in the setting sun of a black night of despair . . I see America in the crimson light of a rising sun fresh from the burning, creative hand of God... I see great days ahead for men and women of will and vision." I've never felt more strongly that America's best days and democracy's best days lie ahead. We're a powerful force for good. With faith and courage, we can perform great deeds and take freedom's next step. And we will. We will carry on the tradition of a good and worthy people who have brought light where there was darkness, warmth where there was cold, medicine where there was disease, food where there was hunger, and peace where there was only bloodshed. Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time, that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept them free; we kept the faith. Thank you very much. God bless you, and God bless America. Source: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-before-joint-session-the-congress-the-state-the-union-4

197th State of the Union Reagan’s Third Annual Message January 25, 1983 Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Congress, honored guests, and fellow citizens: This solemn occasion marks the 196th time that a President of the United States has reported on the State of the Union since George Washington first did so in 1790. That's a lot of reports, but there's no shortage of new things to say about the State of the Union. The very key to our success has been our ability, foremost among nations, to preserve our lasting values by making change work for us rather than against us. I would like to talk with you this evening about what we can do together—not as Republicans and Democrats, but as Americans-to make tomorrow's America happy and prosperous at home, strong and respected abroad, and at peace in the world. As we gather here tonight, the state of our Union is strong, but our economy is troubled. For too many of our fellow citizens-farmers, steel and auto workers, lumbermen, black teenagers, working mothers-this is a painful period. We must all do everything in our power to bring their ordeal to an end. It has fallen to us, in our time, to undo damage that was a long time in the making, and to begin the hard but necessary task of building a better future for ourselves and our children. We have a long way to go, but thanks to the courage, patience, and strength of our people, America is on the mend. But let me give you just one important reason why I believe this—it involves many members of this body. Just 10 days ago, after months of debate and deadlock, the bipartisan Commission on Social Security accomplished the seemingly impossible. Social security, as some of us had warned for so long, faced disaster. I, myself, have been talking about this problem for almost 30 years. As 1983 began, the system stood on the brink of bankruptcy, a double victim of our economic ills. First, a decade of rampant inflation drained its reserves as we tried to protect beneficiaries from the spiraling cost of living. Then the recession and the sudden end of inflation withered the expanding wage base and increasing revenues the system needs to support the 36 million Americans who depend on it. When the Speaker of the House, the Senate majority leader, and I performed the bipartisan—or formed the bipartisan Commission on Social Security, pundits and experts predicted that party divisions and conflicting interests would prevent the Commission from agreeing on a plan to save social security. Well, sometimes, even here in Washington, the cynics are wrong. Through compromise and cooperation, the members of the Commission overcame their differences and achieved a fair, workable plan. They proved that, when it comes to the national welfare, Americans can still pull together for the common good. Tonight, I'm especially pleased to join with the Speaker and the Senate majority leader in urging the Congress to enact this plan by Easter. There are elements in it, of course, that none of us prefers, but taken together it performs a package that all of us can support. It asks for some sacrifice by all—the self-employed, beneficiaries, workers, government employees, and the better-off among the retired—but it imposes an undue burden on none. And, in supporting it, we keep an important pledge to the American people: The integrity of the social security system will be preserved, and no one's payments will be reduced. The Commission's plan will do the job; indeed, it must do the job. We owe it to today's older Americans and today's younger workers. So, before we go any further, I ask you to join with me in saluting the members of the Commission who are here tonight and Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and Speaker Tip O'Neill for a job well done. I hope and pray the bipartisan spirit that guided you in this endeavor will inspire all of us as we face the challenges of the year ahead. Nearly half a century ago, in this Chamber, another American President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in his second State of the Union message, urged America to look to the future, to meet the challenge of change and the need for leadership that looks forward, not backward. "Throughout the world," he said, "change is the order of the day. In every nation economic problems long in the making have brought crises to [of] many kinds for which the masters of old practice and theory were unprepared." He also reminded us that "the future lies with those wise political leaders who realize that the great public is interested more in Government than in politics." So, let us, in these next 2 years—men and women of both parties, every political shade—concentrate on the long-range, bipartisan responsibilities of government, not the short-range or short-term temptations of partisan politics. The problems we inherited were far worse than most inside and out of government had expected; the recession was deeper than most inside and out of government had predicted. Curing those problems has taken more time and a higher toll than any of us wanted. Unemployment is far too high. Projected Federal spending—if government refuses to tighten its own belt-will also be far too high and could weaken and shorten the economic recovery now underway. This recovery will bring with it a revival of economic confidence and spending for consumer items and capital goods—the stimulus we need to restart our stalled economic engines. The American people have already stepped up their rate of saving, assuring that the funds needed to modernize our factories and improve our technology will once again flow to business and industry. The inflationary expectations that led to a 21 1/2-percent interest prime rate and soaring mortgage rates 2 years ago are now reduced by almost half. Leaders have started to realize that double-digit inflation is no longer a way of life. I misspoke there. I should have said "lenders." So, interest rates have tumbled, paving the way for recovery in vital industries like housing and autos. The early evidence of that recovery has started coming in. Housing starts for the fourth quarter of 1982 were up 45 percent from a year ago, and housing permits, a sure indicator of future growth, were up a whopping 60 percent. We're witnessing an upsurge of productivity and impressive evidence that American industry will once again become competitive in markets at home and abroad, ensuring more jobs and better incomes for the Nation's work force. But our confidence must also be tempered by realism and patience. Quick fixes and artificial stimulants repeatedly applied over decades are what brought us the inflationary disorders that we've now paid such a heavy price to cure. The permanent recovery in employment, production, and investment we seek won't come in a sharp, short spurt. It'll build carefully and steadily in the months and years ahead. In the meantime, the challenge of government is to identify the things that we can do now to ease the massive economic transition for the American people. The Federal budget is both a symptom and a cause of our economic problems. Unless we reduce the dangerous growth rate in government spending, we could face the prospect of sluggish economic growth into the indefinite future. Failure to cope with this problem now could mean as much as a trillion dollars more in national debt in the next 4 years alone. That would average $4,300 in additional debt for every man, woman, child, and baby in our nation. To assure a sustained recovery, we must continue getting runaway spending under control to bring those deficits down. If we don't, the recovery will be too short, unemployment will remain too high, and we will leave an unconscionable burden of national debt for our children. That we must not do. Let's be clear about where the deficit problem comes from. Contrary to the drumbeat we've been hearing for the last few months, the deficits we face are not rooted in defense spending. Taken as a percentage of the gross national product, our defense spending happens to be only about four-fifths of what it was in 1970. Nor is the deficit, as some would have it, rooted in tax cuts. Even with our tax cuts, taxes as a fraction of gross national product remain about the same as they were in 1970. The fact is, our deficits come from the uncontrolled growth of the budget for domestic spending. During the 1970's, the share of our national income devoted to this domestic spending increased by more than 60 percent, from 10 cents out of every dollar produced by the American people to 16 cents. In spite of all our economies and efficiencies, and without adding any new programs, basic, necessary domestic spending provided for in this year's budget will grow to almost a trillion dollars over the next 5 years. The deficit problem is a clear and present danger to the basic health of our Republic. We need a plan to overcome this danger—a plan based on these principles. It must be bipartisan. Conquering the deficits and putting the Government's house in order will require the best effort of all of us. It must be fair. Just as all will share in the benefits that will come from recovery, all would share fairly in the burden of transition. It must be prudent. The strength of our national defense must be restored so that we can pursue prosperity and peace and freedom while maintaining our commitment to the truly needy. And finally, it must be realistic. We can't rely on hope alone. With these guiding principles in mind, let me outline a four-part plan to increase economic growth and reduce deficits. First, in my budget message, I will recommend a Federal spending freeze. I know this is strong medicine, but so far, we have only cut the rate of increase in Federal spending. The Government has continued to spend more money each year, though not as much more as it did in the past. Taken as a whole, the budget I'm proposing for the fiscal year will increase no more than the rate of inflation. In other words, the Federal Government will hold the line on real spending. Now, that's far less than many American families have had to do in these difficult times. I will request that the proposed 6-month freeze in cost-of-living adjustments recommended by the bipartisan Social Security Commission be applied to other government-related retirement programs. I will, also, propose a 1-year freeze on a broad range of domestic spending programs, and for Federal civilian and military pay and pension programs. And let me say right here, I'm sorry, with regard to the military, in asking that of them, because for so many years they have been so far behind and so low in reward for what the men and women in uniform are doing. But I'm sure they will understand that this must be across the board and fair. Second, I will ask the Congress to adopt specific measures to control the growth of the so-called uncontrollable spending programs. These are the automatic spending programs, such as food stamps, that cannot be simply frozen and that have grown by over 400 percent since 1970. They are the largest single cause of the built-in or structural deficit problem. Our standard here will be fairness, ensuring that the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars go only to the truly needy; that none of them are turned away, but that fraud and waste are stamped out. And I'm sorry to say, there's a lot of it out there. In the food stamp program alone, last year, we identified almost [$]1.1 billion in overpayments. The taxpayers aren't the only victims of this kind of abuse. The truly needy suffer as funds intended for them are taken not by the needy, but by the greedy. For everyone's sake, we must put an end to such waste and corruption. Third, I will adjust our program to restore America's defenses by proposing $55 billion in defense savings over the next 5 years. These are savings recommended to me by the Secretary of Defense, who has assured me they can be safely achieved and will not diminish our ability to negotiate arms reductions or endanger America's security. We will not gamble with our national survival. And fourth, because we must ensure reduction and eventual elimination of deficits over the next several years, I will propose a standby tax, limited to no more than 1 percent of the gross national product, to start in fiscal 1986. It would last no more than 3 years, and it would start only if the Congress has first approved our spending freeze and budget control program. And there are several other conditions also that must be met, all of them in order for this program to be triggered. Now, you could say that this is an insurance policy for the future, a remedy that will be at hand if needed but only resorted to if absolutely necessary. In the meantime, we'll continue to study ways to simplify the tax code and make it more fair for all Americans. This is a goal that every American who's ever struggled with a tax form can understand. At the same time, however, I will oppose any efforts to undo the basic tax reforms that we've already enacted, including the 10-percent tax break coming to taxpayers this July and the tax indexing which will protect all Americans from inflationary bracket creep in the years ahead. Now, I realize that this four-part plan is easier to describe than it will be to enact. But the looming deficits that hang over us and over America's future must be reduced. The path I've outlined is fair, balanced, and realistic. If enacted, it will ensure a steady decline in deficits, aiming toward a balanced budget by the end of the decade. It's the only path that will lead to a strong, sustained recovery. Let us follow that path together. No domestic challenge is more crucial than providing stable, permanent jobs for all Americans who want to work. The recovery program will provide jobs for most, but others will need special help and training for new skills. Shortly, I will submit to the Congress the Employment Act of 1983, designed to get at the special problems of the long-term unemployed, as well as young people trying to enter the job market. I'll propose extending unemployment benefits, including special incentives to employers who hire the long-term unemployed, providing programs for displaced workers, and helping federally funded and State-administered unemployment insurance programs provide workers with training and relocation assistance. Finally, our proposal will include new incentives for summer youth employment to help young people get a start in the job market. We must offer both short-term help and long-term hope for our unemployed. I hope we can work together on this. I hope we can work together as we did last year in enacting the landmark Job Training Partnership Act. Regulatory reform legislation, a responsible clean air act, and passage of enterprise zone legislation will also create new incentives for jobs and opportunity. One of out of every five jobs in our country depends on trade. So, I will propose a broader strategy in the field of international trade—one that increases the openness of our trading system and is fairer to America's farmers and workers in the world marketplace. We must have adequate export financing to sell American products overseas. I will ask for new negotiating authority to remove barriers and to get more of our products into foreign markets. We must strengthen the organization of our trade agencies and make changes in our domestic laws and international trade policy to promote free trade and the increased flow of American goods, services, and investments. Our trade position can also be improved by making our port system more efficient. Better, more active harbors translate into stable jobs in our coalfields, railroads, trucking industry, and ports. After 2 years of debate, it's time for us to get together and enact a port modernization bill. Education, training, and retraining are fundamental to our success as are research and development and productivity. Labor, management, and government at all levels can and must participate in improving these tools of growth. Tax policy, regulatory practices, and government programs all need constant reevaluation in terms of our competitiveness. Every American has a role and a stake in international trade. We Americans are still the technological leaders in most fields. We must keep that edge, and to do so we need to begin renewing the basics—starting with our educational system. While we grew complacent, others have acted. Japan, with a population only about half the size of ours, graduates from its universities more engineers than we do. If a child doesn't receive adequate math and science teaching by the age of 16, he or she has lost the chance to be a scientist or an engineer. We must join together-parents, teachers, grass roots groups, organized labor, and the business community-to revitalize American education by setting a standard of excellence. In 1983 we seek four major education goals: a quality education initiative to encourage a substantial upgrading of math and science instruction through block grants to the States; establishment of education savings accounts that will give middle and lower-income families an incentive to save for their children's college education and, at the same time, encourage a real increase in savings for economic growth; passage of tuition tax credits for parents who want to send their children to private or religiously affiliated schools; a constitutional amendment to permit voluntary school prayer. God should never have been expelled from America's classrooms in the first place. Our commitment to fairness means that we must assure legal and economic equity for women, and eliminate, once and for all, all traces of unjust discrimination against women from the United States Code. We will not tolerate wage discrimination based on sex, and we intend to strengthen enforcement of child support laws to ensure that single parents, most of whom are women, do not suffer unfair financial hardship. We will also take action to remedy inequities in pensions. These initiatives will be joined by others to continue our efforts to promote equity for women. Also in the area of fairness and equity, we will ask for extension of the Civil Rights Commission, which is due to expire this year. The Commission is an important part of the ongoing struggle for justice in America, and we strongly support its reauthorization. Effective enforcement of our nation's fair housing laws is also essential to ensuring equal opportunity. In the year ahead, we'll work to strengthen enforcement of fair housing laws for all Americans. The time has also come for major reform of our criminal justice statutes and acceleration of the drive against organized crime and drug trafficking. It's high time that we make our cities safe again. This administration hereby declares an all-out war on big-time organized crime and the drug racketeers who are poisoning our young people. We will also implement recommendations of our Task Force on Victims of Crime, which will report to me this week. American agriculture, the envy of the world, has become the victim of its own successes. With one farmer now producing enough food to feed himself and 77 other people, America is confronted with record surplus crops and commodity prices below the cost of production. We must strive, through innovations like the payment-in-kind crop swap approach and an aggressive export policy, to restore health and vitality to rural America. Meanwhile, I have instructed the Department of Agriculture to work individually with farmers with debt problems to help them through these tough times. Over the past year, our Task Force on Private Sector Initiatives has successfully forged a working partnership involving leaders of business, labor, education, and government to address the training needs of American workers. Thanks to the Task Force, private sector initiatives are now underway in all 50 States of the Union, and thousands of working people have been helped in making the shift from dead-end jobs and low-demand skills to the growth areas of high technology and the service economy. Additionally, a major effort will be focused on encouraging the expansion of private community child care. The new advisory council on private sector initiatives will carry on and extend this vital work of encouraging private initiative in 1983. In the coming year, we will also act to improve the quality of life for Americans by curbing the skyrocketing cost of health care that is becoming an unbearable financial burden for so many. And we will submit legislation to provide catastrophic illness insurance coverage for older Americans. I will also shortly submit a comprehensive federalism proposal that will continue our efforts to restore to States and local governments their roles as dynamic laboratories of change in a creative society. During the next several weeks, I will send to the Congress a series of detailed proposals on these and other topics and look forward to working with you on the development of these initiatives. So far, now, I've concentrated mainly on the problems posed by the future. But in almost every home and workplace in America, we're already witnessing reason for great hope—the first flowering of the manmade miracles of high technology, a field pioneered and still led by our country. To many of us now, computers, silicon chips, data processing, cybernetics, and all the other innovations of the dawning high technology age are as mystifying as the workings of the combustion engine must have been when that first Model T rattled down Main Street, U.S.A. But as surely as America's pioneer spirit made us the industrial giant of the 20th century, the same pioneer spirit today is opening up on another vast front of opportunity, the frontier of high technology. In conquering the frontier we cannot write off our traditional industries, but we must develop the skills and industries that will make us a pioneer of tomorrow. This administration is committed to keeping America the technological leader of the world now and into the 21st century. But let us turn briefly to the international arena. America's leadership in the world came to us because of our own strength and because of the values which guide us as a society: free elections, a free press, freedom of religious choice, free trade unions, and above all, freedom for the individual and rejection of the arbitrary power of the state. These values are the bedrock of our strength. They unite us in a stewardship of peace and freedom with our allies and friends in NATO, in Asia, in Latin America, and elsewhere. They are also the values which in the recent past some among us had begun to doubt and view with a cynical eye. Fortunately, we and our allies have rediscovered the strength of our common democratic values, and we're applying them as a cornerstone of a comprehensive strategy for peace with freedom. In London last year, I announced the commitment of the United States to developing the infrastructure of democracy throughout the world. We intend to pursue this democratic initiative vigorously. The future belongs not to governments and ideologies which oppress their peoples, but to democratic systems of self-government which encourage individual initiative and guarantee personal freedom. But our strategy for peace with freedom must also be based on strength—economic strength and military strength. A strong American economy is essential to the well-being and security of our friends and allies. The restoration of a strong, healthy American economy has been and remains one of the central pillars of our foreign policy. The progress I've been able to report to you tonight will, I know, be as warmly welcomed by the rest of the world as it is by the American people. We must also recognize that our own economic well-being is inextricably linked to the world economy. We export over 20 percent of our industrial production, and 40 percent of our farmland produces for export. We will continue to work closely with the industrialized democracies of Europe and Japan and with the International Monetary Fund to ensure it has adequate resources to help bring the world economy back to strong, noninflationary growth. As the leader of the West and as a country that has become great and rich because of economic freedom, America must be an unrelenting advocate of free trade. As some nations are tempted to turn to protectionism, our strategy cannot be to follow them, but to lead the way toward freer trade. To this end, in May of this year America will host an economic summit meeting in Williamsburg, Virginia. As we begin our third year, we have put in place a defense program that redeems the neglect of the past decade. We have developed a realistic military strategy to deter threats to peace and to protect freedom if deterrence fails. Our Armed Forces are finally properly paid; after years of neglect are well trained and becoming better equipped and supplied. And the American uniform is once again worn with pride. Most of the major systems needed for modernizing our defenses are already underway, and we will be addressing one key system, the MX missile, in consultation with the Congress in a few months. America's foreign policy is once again based on bipartisanship, on realism, strength, full partnership, in consultation with our allies, and constructive negotiation with potential adversaries. From the Middle East to southern Africa to Geneva, American diplomats are taking the initiative to make peace and lower arms levels. We should be proud of our role as peacemakers. In the Middle East last year, the United States played the major role in ending the tragic fighting in Lebanon and negotiated the withdrawal of the PLO from Beirut. Last September, I outlined principles to carry on the peace process begun so promisingly at Camp David. All the people of the Middle East should know that in the year ahead we will not flag in our efforts to build on that foundation to bring them the blessings of peace. In Central America and the Caribbean Basin, we are likewise engaged in a partnership for peace, prosperity, and democracy. Final passage of the remaining portions of our Caribbean Basin Initiative, which passed the House last year, is one of this administration's top legislative priorities for 1983. The security and economic assistance policies of this administration in Latin America and elsewhere are based on realism and represent a critical investment in the future of the human race. This undertaking is a joint responsibility of the executive and legislative branches, and I'm counting on the cooperation and statesmanship of the Congress to help us meet this essential foreign policy goal. At the heart of our strategy for peace is our relationship with the Soviet Union. The past year saw a change in Soviet leadership. We're prepared for a positive change in Soviet-American relations. But the Soviet Union must show by deeds as well as words a sincere commitment to respect the rights and sovereignty of the family of nations. Responsible members of the world community do not threaten or invade their neighbors. And they restrain their allies from aggression. For our part, we're vigorously pursuing arms reduction negotiations with the Soviet Union. Supported by our allies, we've put forward draft agreements proposing significant weapon reductions to equal and verifiable lower levels. We insist on an equal balance of forces. And given the overwhelming evidence of Soviet violations of international treaties concerning chemical and biological weapons, we also insist that any agreement we sign can and will be verifiable. In the case of intermediate-range nuclear forces, we have proposed the complete elimination of the entire class of land-based missiles. We're also prepared to carefully explore serious Soviet proposals. At the same time, let me emphasize that allied steadfastness remains a key to achieving arms reductions. With firmness and dedication, we'll continue to negotiate. Deep down, the Soviets must know it's in their interest as well as ours to prevent a wasteful arms race. And once they recognize our unshakable resolve to maintain adequate deterrence, they will have every reason to join us in the search for greater security and major arms reductions. When that moment comes—and I'm confident that it will—we will have taken an important step toward a more peaceful future for all the world's people. A very wise man, Bernard Baruch, once said that America has never forgotten the nobler things that brought her into being and that light her path. Our country is a special place, because we Americans have always been sustained, through good times and bad, by a noble vision—a vision not only of what the world around us is today but what we as a free people can make it be tomorrow. We're realists; we solve our problems instead of ignoring them, no matter how loud the chorus of despair around us. But we're also idealists, for it was an ideal that brought our ancestors to these shores from every corner of the world. Right now we need both realism and idealism. Millions of our neighbors are without work. It is up to us to see they aren't without hope. This is a task for all of us. And may I say, Americans have rallied to this cause, proving once again that we are the most generous people on Earth. We who are in government must take the lead in restoring the economy. [Applause] And here all that time, I thought you were reading the paper. [Laughter] The single thing—the single thing that can start the wheels of industry turning again is further reduction of interest rates. Just another 1 or 2 points can mean tens of thousands of jobs. Right now, with inflation as low as it is, 3.9 percent, there is room for interest rates to come down. Only fear prevents their reduction. A lender, as we know, must charge an interest rate that recovers the depreciated value of the dollars loaned. And that depreciation is, of course, the amount of inflation. Today, interest rates are based on fear—fear that government will resort to measures, as it has in the past, that will send inflation zooming again. We who serve here in this Capital must erase that fear by making it absolutely clear that we will not stop fighting inflation; that, together, we will do only those things that will lead to lasting economic growth. Yes, the problems confronting us are large and forbidding. And, certainly, no one can or should minimize the plight of millions of our friends and neighbors who are living in the bleak emptiness of unemployment. But we must and can give them good reason to be hopeful. Back over the years, citizens like ourselves have gathered within these walls when our nation was threatened; sometimes when its very existence was at stake. Always with courage and common sense, they met the crises of their time and lived to see a stronger, better, and more prosperous country. The present situation is no worse and, in fact, is not as bad as some of those they faced. Time and again, they proved that there is nothing we Americans cannot achieve as free men and women. Yes, we still have problems—plenty of them. But it's just plain wrong—unjust to our country and unjust to our people—to let those problems stand in the way of the most important truth of all: America is on the mend. We owe it to the unfortunate to be aware of their plight and to help them in every way we can. No one can quarrel with that. We must and do have compassion for all the victims of this economic crisis. But the big story about America today is the way that millions of confident, caring people-those extraordinary "ordinary" Americans who never make the headlines and will never be interviewed—are laying the foundation, not just for recovery from our present problems but for a better tomorrow for all our people. From coast to coast, on the job and in classrooms and laboratories, at new construction sites and in churches and community groups, neighbors are helping neighbors. And they've already begun the building, the research, the work, and the giving that will make our country great again. I believe this, because I believe in them-in the strength of their hearts and minds, in the commitment that each one of them brings to their daily lives, be they high or humble. The challenge for us in government is to be worthy of them—to make government a help, not a hindrance to our people in the challenging but promising days ahead. If we do that, if we care what our children and our children's children will say of us, if we want them one day to be thankful for what we did here in these temples of freedom, we will work together to make America better for our having been here-not just in this year or this decade but in the next century and beyond. Thank you, and God bless you. Source: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-before-joint-session-the-congress-the-state-the-union-3

Carter’s Farewell Address January 14, 1981 Good evening. In a few days I will lay down my official responsibilities in this office, to take up once more the only title in our democracy superior to that of President, the title of citizen. Of Vice President Mondale, my Cabinet, and the hundreds of others who have served with me during the last 4 years, I wish to say now publicly what I have said in private: I thank them for the dedication and competence they've brought to the service of our country. But I owe my deepest thanks to you, to the American people, because you gave me this extraordinary opportunity to serve. We've faced great challenges together, and we know that future problems will also be difficult. But I'm now more convinced than ever that the United States, better than any other country, can meet successfully whatever the future might bring. These last 4 years have made me more certain than ever of the inner strength of our country, the unchanging value of our principles and ideals, the stability of our political system, the ingenuity and the decency of our people. Tonight I would like first to say a few words about this most special office, the Presidency of the United States. This is at once the most powerful office in the world and among the most severely constrained by law and custom. The President is given a broad responsibility to lead but cannot do so without the support and consent of the people, expressed formally through the Congress and informally in many ways through a whole range of public and private institutions. This is as it should be. Within our system of government every American has a right and a duty to help shape the future course of the United States. Thoughtful criticism and close scrutiny of all government officials by the press and the public are an important part of our democratic society. Now, as in the past, only the understanding and involvement of the people through full and open debate can help to avoid serious mistakes and assure the continued dignity and safety of the Nation. Today we are asking our political system to do things of which the Founding Fathers never dreamed. The government they designed for a few hundred thousand people now serves a nation of almost 230 million people. Their small coastal republic now spans beyond a continent, and we also now have the responsibility to help lead much of the world through difficult times to a secure and prosperous future. Today, as people have become ever more doubtful of the ability of the Government to deal with our problems, we are increasingly drawn to single-issue groups and special interest organizations to ensure that whatever else happens, our own personal views and our own private interests are protected. This is a disturbing factor in American political life. It tends to distort our purposes, because the national interest is not always the sum of all our single or special interests. We are all Americans together, and we must not forget that the common good is our common interest and our individual responsibility. Because of the fragmented pressures of these special interests, it's very important that the office of the President be a strong one and that its constitutional authority be preserved. The President is the only elected official charged with the primary responsibility of representing all the people. In the moments of decision, after the different and conflicting views have all been aired, it's the President who then must speak to the Nation and for the Nation. I understand after 4 years in this office, as few others can, how formidable is the task the new President-elect is about to undertake, and to the very limits of conscience and conviction, I pledge to support him in that task. I wish him success, and Godspeed. I know from experience that Presidents have to face major issues that are controversial, broad in scope, and which do not arouse the natural support of a political majority. For a few minutes now, I want to lay aside my role as leader of one nation, and speak to you as a fellow citizen of the world about three issues, three difficult issues: the threat of nuclear destruction, our stewardship of the physical resources of our planet, and the preeminence of the basic rights of human beings. It's now been 35 years since the first atomic bomb fell on Hiroshima. The great majority of the world's people cannot remember a time when the .nuclear shadow did not hang over the Earth. Our minds have adjusted to it, as after a time our eyes adjust to the dark. Yet the risk of a nuclear conflagration has not lessened. It has not happened yet, thank God, but that can give us little comfort, for it only has to happen once. The danger is becoming greater. As the arsenals of the superpowers grow in size and sophistication and as other governments, perhaps even in the future dozens of governments, acquire these weapons, it may only be a matter of time before madness, desperation, greed, or miscalculation lets loose this terrible force. In an all-out nuclear war, more destructive power than in all of World War II would be unleashed every second during the long afternoon it would take for all the missiles and bombs to fall. A World War II every second—more people killed in the first few hours than in all the wars of history put together. The survivors, if any, would live in despair amid the poisoned ruins of a civilization that had committed suicide. National weakness, real or perceived, can tempt aggression and thus cause war. That's why the United States can never neglect its military strength. We must and we will remain strong. But with equal determination, the United States and all countries must find ways to control and to reduce the horrifying danger that is posed by the enormous world stockpiles of nuclear arms. This has been a concern of every American President since the moment we first saw what these weapons could do. Our leaders will require our understanding and our support as they grapple with this difficult but crucial challenge. There is no disagreement on the goals or the basic approach to controlling this enormous destructive force. The answer lies not just in the attitudes or the actions of world leaders but in the concern and the demands of all of us as we continue our struggle to preserve the peace. Nuclear weapons are an expression of one side of our human character. But there's another side. The same rocket technology that delivers nuclear warheads has also taken us peacefully into space. From that perspective, we see our Earth as it really is—a small and fragile and beautiful blue globe, the only home we have. We see no barriers of race or religion or country. We see the essential unity of our species and our planet. And with faith and common sense, that bright vision will ultimately prevail. Another major challenge, therefore, is to protect the quality of this world within which we live. The shadows that fall across the future are cast not only by the kinds of weapons we've built, but by the kind of world we will either nourish or neglect. There are real and growing dangers to our simple and our most precious possessions: the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land which sustains us. The rapid depletion of irreplaceable minerals, the erosion of topsoil, the destruction of beauty, the blight of pollution, the demands of increasing billions of people, all combine to create problems which are easy to observe and predict, but difficult to resolve. If we do not act, the world of the year 2000 will be much less able to sustain life than it is now. But there is no reason for despair. Acknowledging the physical realities of our planet does not mean a dismal future of endless sacrifice. In fact, acknowledging these realities is the first step in dealing with them. We can meet the resource problems of the world—water, food, minerals, farmlands, forests, overpopulation, pollution if we tackle them with courage and foresight. I've just been talking about forces of potential destruction that mankind has developed and how we might control them. It's equally important that we remember the beneficial forces that we have evolved over the ages and how to hold fast to them. One of those constructive forces is the enhancement of individual human freedoms through the strengthening of democracy and the fight against deprivation, torture, terrorism, and the persecution of people throughout the world. The struggle for human rights overrides all differences of color or nation or language. Those who hunger for freedom, who thirst for human dignity, and who suffer for the sake of justice, they are the patriots of this cause. I believe with all my heart that America must always stand for these basic human rights at home and abroad. That is both our history and our destiny. America did not invent human rights. In a very real sense, it's the other way around. Human rights invented America. Ours was the first nation in the history of the world to be founded explicitly on such an idea. Our social and political progress has been based on one fundamental principle: the value and importance of the individual. The fundamental force that unites us is not kinship or place of origin or religious preference. The love of liberty is the common blood that flows in our American veins. The battle for human rights, at home and abroad, is far from over. We should never be surprised nor discouraged, because the impact of our efforts has had and will always have varied results. Rather, we should take pride that the ideals which gave birth to our Nation still inspire the hopes of oppressed people around the world. We have no cause for self-righteousness or complacency, but we have every reason to persevere, both within our own country and beyond our borders. If we are to serve as a beacon for human rights, we must continue to perfect here at home the rights and the values which we espouse around the world: a decent education for our children, adequate medical care for all Americans, an end to discrimination against minorities and women, a job for all those able to work, and freedom from injustice and religious intolerance. We live in a time of transition, an uneasy era which is likely to endure for the rest of this century. It will be a period of tensions, both within nations and between nations, of competition for scarce resources, of social, political, and economic stresses and strains. During this period we may be tempted to abandon some of the time-honored principles and commitments which have been proven during the difficult times of past generations. We must never yield to this temptation. Our American values are not luxuries, but necessities—not the salt in our bread, but the bread itself. Our common vision of a free and just society is our greatest source of cohesion at home and strength abroad, greater even than the bounty of our material blessings. Remember these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." This vision still grips the imagination of the world. But we know that democracy is always an unfinished creation. Each generation must renew its foundations. Each generation must rediscover the meaning of this hallowed vision in the light of its own modern challenges. For this generation, ours, life is nuclear survival; liberty is human rights; the pursuit of happiness is a planet whose resources are devoted to the physical and spiritual nourishment of its inhabitants. During the next few days I will work hard to make sure that the transition from myself to the next President is a good one, that the American people are served well. And I will continue, as I have the last 14 months, to work hard and to pray for the lives and the well-being of the American hostages held in Iran. I can't predict yet what will happen, but I hope you will join me in my constant prayer for their freedom. As I return home to the South, where I was born and raised, I look forward to the opportunity to reflect and further to assess, I hope with accuracy, the circumstances of our times. I intend to give our new President my support, and I intend to work as a citizen, as I've worked here in this office as President, for the values this Nation was founded to secure. Again, from the bottom of my heart, I want to express to you the gratitude I feel. Thank you, fellow citizens, and farewell. Source: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/farewell-address-the-nation-0

September 26, 2016   PARTICIPANTS: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D); andBusinessman Donald Trump (R) MODERATOR: Lester Holt (NBC News) HOLT:  Good evening from Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. I'm Lester Holt, anchor of "NBC Nightly News." I want to welcome you to the first presidential debate. The participants tonight are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. This debate is sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. The commission drafted tonight's format, and the rules have been agreed to by the campaigns. The 90-minute debate is divided into six segments, each 15 minutes long. We'll explore three topic areas tonight: Achieving prosperity; America's direction; and securing America. At the start of each segment, I will ask the same lead-off question to both candidates, and they will each have up to two minutes to respond. From that point until the end of the segment, we'll have an open discussion. The questions are mine and have not been shared with the commission or the campaigns. The audience here in the room has agreed to remain silent so that we can focus on what the candidates are saying. I will invite you to applaud, however, at this moment, as we welcome the candidates: Democratic nominee for president of the United States, Hillary Clinton, and Republican nominee for president of the United States, Donald J. Trump. [ applause ] CLINTON:  How are you, Donald? [ applause ] HOLT:  Good luck to you. [ applause ] Well, I don't expect us to cover all the issues of this campaign tonight, but I remind everyone, there are two more presidential debates scheduled. We are going to focus on many of the issues that voters tell us are most important, and we're going to press for specifics. I am honored to have this role, but this evening belongs to the candidates and, just as important, to the American people. Candidates, we look forward to hearing you articulate your policies and your positions, as well as your visions and your values. So, let's begin. We're calling this opening segment "Achieving Prosperity." And central to that is jobs. There are two economic realities in America today. There's been a record six straight years of job growth, and new census numbers show incomes have increased at a record rate after years of stagnation. However, income inequality remains significant, and nearly half of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. Beginning with you, Secretary Clinton, why are you a better choice than your opponent to create the kinds of jobs that will put more money into the pockets of American works? CLINTON:  Well, thank you, Lester, and thanks to Hofstra for hosting us. The central question in this election is really what kind of country we want to be and what kind of future we'll build together. Today is my granddaughter's second birthday, so I think about this a lot. First, we have to build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. That means we need new jobs, good jobs, with rising incomes. I want us to invest in you. I want us to invest in your future. That means jobs in infrastructure, in advanced manufacturing, innovation and technology, clean, renewable energy, and small business, because most of the new jobs will come from small business. We also have to make the economy fairer. That starts with raising the national minimum wage and also guarantee, finally, equal pay for women's work. I also want to see more companies do profit-sharing. If you help create the profits, you should be able to share in them, not just the executives at the top. And I want us to do more to support people who are struggling to balance family and work. I've heard from so many of you about the difficult choices you face and the stresses that you're under. So let's have paid family leave, earned sick days. Let's be sure we have affordable child care and debt-free college. How are we going to do it? We're going to do it by having the wealthy pay their fair share and close the corporate loopholes. Finally, we tonight are on the stage together, Donald Trump and I. Donald, it's good to be with you. We're going to have a debate where we are talking about the important issues facing our country. You have to judge us, who can shoulder the immense, awesome responsibilities of the presidency, who can put into action the plans that will make your life better. I hope that I will be able to earn your vote on November 8th. HOLT:  Secretary Clinton, thank you. Mr. Trump, the same question to you. It's about putting money—more money into the pockets of American workers. You have up to two minutes. TRUMP:  Thank you, Lester. Our jobs are fleeing the country. They're going to Mexico. They're going to many other countries. You look at what China is doing to our country in terms of making our product. They're devaluing their currency, and there's nobody in our government to fight them. And we have a very good fight. And we have a winning fight. Because they're using our country as a piggy bank to rebuild China, and many other countries are doing the same thing. So we're losing our good jobs, so many of them. When you look at what's happening in Mexico, a friend of mine who builds plants said it's the eighth wonder of the world. They're building some of the biggest plants anywhere in the world, some of the most sophisticated, some of the best plants. With the United States, as he said, not so much. So Ford is leaving. You see that, their small car division leaving. Thousands of jobs leaving Michigan, leaving Ohio. They're all leaving. And we can't allow it to happen anymore. As far as child care is concerned and so many other things, I think Hillary and I agree on that. We probably disagree a little bit as to numbers and amounts and what we're going to do, but perhaps we'll be talking about that later. But we have to stop our jobs from being stolen from us. We have to stop our companies from leaving the United States and, with it, firing all of their people. All you have to do is take a look at Carrier air conditioning in Indianapolis. They left—fired 1,400 people. They're going to Mexico. So many hundreds and hundreds of companies are doing this. We cannot let it happen. Under my plan, I'll be reducing taxes tremendously, from 35 percent to 15 percent for companies, small and big businesses. That's going to be a job creator like we haven't seen since Ronald Reagan. It's going to be a beautiful thing to watch. Companies will come. They will build. They will expand. New companies will start. And I look very, very much forward to doing it. We have to renegotiate our trade deals, and we have to stop these countries from stealing our companies and our jobs. HOLT:  Secretary Clinton, would you like to respond? CLINTON:  Well, I think that trade is an important issue. Of course, we are 5 percent of the world's population; we have to trade with the other 95 percent. And we need to have smart, fair trade deals. We also, though, need to have a tax system that rewards work and not just financial transactions. And the kind of plan that Donald has put forth would be trickle-down economics all over again. In fact, it would be the most extreme version, the biggest tax cuts for the top percent of the people in this country than we've ever had. I call it trumped-up trickle-down, because that's exactly what it would be. That is not how we grow the economy. We just have a different view about what's best for growing the economy, how we make investments that will actually produce jobs and rising incomes. I think we come at it from somewhat different perspectives. I understand that. You know, Donald was very fortunate in his life, and that's all to his benefit. He started his business with $14 million, borrowed from his father, and he really believes that the more you help wealthy people, the better off we'll be and that everything will work out from there. I don't buy that. I have a different experience. My father was a small-businessman. He worked really hard. He printed drapery fabrics on long tables, where he pulled out those fabrics and he went down with a silkscreen and dumped the paint in and took the squeegee and kept going. And so what I believe is the more we can do for the middle class, the more we can invest in you, your education, your skills, your future, the better we will be off and the better we'll grow. That's the kind of economy I want us to see again. HOLT:  Let me follow up with Mr. Trump, if you can. You've talked about creating 25 million jobs, and you've promised to bring back millions of jobs for Americans. How are you going to bring back the industries that have left this country for cheaper labor overseas? How, specifically, are you going to tell American manufacturers that you have to come back? TRUMP:  Well, for one thing—and before we start on that—my father gave me a very small loan in 1975, and I built it into a company that's worth many, many billions of dollars, with some of the greatest assets in the world, and I say that only because that's the kind of thinking that our country needs. Our country's in deep trouble. We don't know what we're doing when it comes to devaluations and all of these countries all over the world, especially China. They're the best, the best ever at it. What they're doing to us is a very, very sad thing. So we have to do that. We have to renegotiate our trade deals. And, Lester, they're taking our jobs, they're giving incentives, they're doing things that, frankly, we don't do. Let me give you the example of Mexico. They have a VAT tax. We're on a different system. When we sell into Mexico, there's a tax. When they sell in—automatic, 16 percent, approximately. When they sell into us, there's no tax. It's a defective agreement. It's been defective for a long time, many years, but the politicians haven't done anything about it. Now, in all fairness to Secretary Clinton—yes, is that OK? Good. I want you to be very happy. It's very important to me. But in all fairness to Secretary Clinton, when she started talking about this, it was really very recently. She's been doing this for 30 years. And why hasn't she made the agreements better? The NAFTA agreement is defective. Just because of the tax and many other reasons, but just because of the fact... HOLT:  Let me interrupt just a moment, but... TRUMP:  Secretary Clinton and others, politicians, should have been doing this for years, not right now, because of the fact that we've created a movement. They should have been doing this for years. What's happened to our jobs and our country and our economy generally is—look, we owe $20 trillion. We cannot do it any longer, Lester. HOLT:  Back to the question, though. How do you bring back—specifically bring back jobs, American manufacturers? How do you make them bring the jobs back? TRUMP:  Well, the first thing you do is don't let the jobs leave. The companies are leaving. I could name, I mean, there are thousands of them. They're leaving, and they're leaving in bigger numbers than ever. And what you do is you say, fine, you want to go to Mexico or some other country, good luck. We wish you a lot of luck. But if you think you're going to make your air conditioners or your cars or your cookies or whatever you make and bring them into our country without a tax, you're wrong. And once you say you're going to have to tax them coming in, and our politicians never do this, because they have special interests and the special interests want those companies to leave, because in many cases, they own the companies. So what I'm saying is, we can stop them from leaving. We have to stop them from leaving. And that's a big, big factor. HOLT:  Let me let Secretary Clinton get in here. CLINTON:  Well, let's stop for a second and remember where we were eight years ago. We had the worst financial crisis, the Great Recession, the worst since the 1930s. That was in large part because of tax policies that slashed taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class, took their eyes off of Wall Street, and created a perfect storm. In fact, Donald was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis. He said, back in 2006, "Gee, I hope it does collapse, because then I can go in and buy some and make some money." Well, it did collapse. TRUMP:  That's called business, by the way. CLINTON:  Nine million people—nine million people lost their jobs. Five million people lost their homes. And $13 trillion in family wealth was wiped out. Now, we have come back from that abyss. And it has not been easy. So we're now on the precipice of having a potentially much better economy, but the last thing we need to do is to go back to the policies that failed us in the first place. Independent experts have looked at what I've proposed and looked at what Donald's proposed, and basically they've said this, that if his tax plan, which would blow up the debt by over $5 trillion and would in some instances disadvantage middle-class families compared to the wealthy, were to go into effect, we would lose 3.5 million jobs and maybe have another recession. They've looked at my plans and they've said, OK, if we can do this, and I intend to get it done, we will have 10 million more new jobs, because we will be making investments where we can grow the economy. Take clean energy. Some country is going to be the clean- energy superpower of the 21st century. Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it's real. TRUMP:  I did not. I did not. I do not say that. CLINTON:  I think science is real. TRUMP:  I do not say that. CLINTON:  And I think it's important that we grip this and deal with it, both at home and abroad. And here's what we can do. We can deploy a half a billion more solar panels. We can have enough clean energy to power every home. We can build a new modern electric grid. That's a lot of jobs; that's a lot of new economic activity. So I've tried to be very specific about what we can and should do, and I am determined that we're going to get the economy really moving again, building on the progress we've made over the last eight years, but never going back to what got us in trouble in the first place. HOLT:  Mr. Trump? TRUMP:  She talks about solar panels. We invested in a solar company, our country. That was a disaster. They lost plenty of money on that one. Now, look, I'm a great believer in all forms of energy, but we're putting a lot of people out of work. Our energy policies are a disaster. Our country is losing so much in terms of energy, in terms of paying off our debt. You can't do what you're looking to do with $20 trillion in debt. The Obama administration, from the time they've come in, is over 230 years' worth of debt, and he's topped it. He's doubled it in a course of almost eight years, seven-and-a-half years, to be semi- exact. So I will tell you this. We have to do a much better job at keeping our jobs. And we have to do a much better job at giving companies incentives to build new companies or to expand, because they're not doing it. And all you have to do is look at Michigan and look at Ohio and look at all of these places where so many of their jobs and their companies are just leaving, they're gone. And, Hillary, I'd just ask you this. You've been doing this for 30 years. Why are you just thinking about these solutions right now? For 30 years, you've been doing it, and now you're just starting to think of solutions. CLINTON:  Well, actually... TRUMP:  I will bring—excuse me. I will bring back jobs. You can't bring back jobs. CLINTON:  Well, actually, I have thought about this quite a bit. TRUMP:  Yeah, for 30 years. CLINTON:  And I have—well, not quite that long. I think my husband did a pretty good job in the 1990s. I think a lot about what worked and how we can make it work again... TRUMP:  Well, he approved NAFTA... [ crosstalk ] CLINTON:  ... million new jobs, a balanced budget... TRUMP:  He approved NAFTA, which is the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country. CLINTON:  Incomes went up for everybody. Manufacturing jobs went up also in the 1990s, if we're actually going to look at the facts. When I was in the Senate, I had a number of trade deals that came before me, and I held them all to the same test. Will they create jobs in America? Will they raise incomes in America? And are they good for our national security? Some of them I voted for. The biggest one, a multinational one known as CAFTA, I voted against. And because I hold the same standards as I look at all of these trade deals. But let's not assume that trade is the only challenge we have in the economy. I think it is a part of it, and I've said what I'm going to do. I'm going to have a special prosecutor. We're going to enforce the trade deals we have, and we're going to hold people accountable. When I was secretary of state, we actually increased American exports globally 30 percent. We increased them to China 50 percent. So I know how to really work to get new jobs and to get exports that helped to create more new jobs. HOLT:  Very quickly... TRUMP:  But you haven't done it in 30 years or 26 years or any number you want to... CLINTON:  Well, I've been a senator, Donald... TRUMP:  You haven't done it. You haven't done it. CLINTON:  And I have been a secretary of state... TRUMP:  Excuse me. CLINTON:  And I have done a lot... TRUMP:  Your husband signed NAFTA, which was one of the worst things that ever happened to the manufacturing industry. CLINTON:  Well, that's your opinion. That is your opinion. TRUMP:  You go to New England, you go to Ohio, Pennsylvania, you go anywhere you want, Secretary Clinton, and you will see devastation where manufacture is down 30, 40, sometimes 50 percent. NAFTA is the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere, but certainly ever signed in this country. And now you want to approve Trans-Pacific Partnership. You were totally in favor of it. Then you heard what I was saying, how bad it is, and you said, I can't win that debate. But you know that if you did win, you would approve that, and that will be almost as bad as NAFTA. Nothing will ever top NAFTA. CLINTON:  Well, that is just not accurate. I was against it once it was finally negotiated and the terms were laid out. I wrote about that in... TRUMP:  You called it the gold standard. [ crosstalk ] TRUMP:  You called it the gold standard of trade deals. You said it's the finest deal you've ever seen. CLINTON:  No. TRUMP:  And then you heard what I said about it, and all of a sudden you were against it. CLINTON:  Well, Donald, I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts. The facts are—I did say I hoped it would be a good deal, but when it was negotiated... TRUMP:  Not. CLINTON:  ... which I was not responsible for, I concluded it wasn't. I wrote about that in my book... TRUMP:  So is it President Obama's fault? CLINTON:  ... before you even announced. TRUMP:  Is it President Obama's fault? CLINTON:  Look, there are differences... TRUMP:  Secretary, is it President Obama's fault? CLINTON:  There are... TRUMP:  Because he's pushing it. CLINTON:  There are different views about what's good for our country, our economy, and our leadership in the world. And I think it's important to look at what we need to do to get the economy going again. That's why I said new jobs with rising incomes, investments, not in more tax cuts that would add $5 trillion to the debt. TRUMP:  But you have no plan. CLINTON:  But in—oh, but I do. TRUMP:  Secretary, you have no plan. CLINTON:  In fact, I have written a book about it. It's called "Stronger Together." You can pick it up tomorrow at a bookstore... TRUMP:  That's about all you've... [ crosstalk ] HOLT:  Folks, we're going to... CLINTON:  ... or at an airport near you. HOLT:  We're going to move to... CLINTON:  But it's because I see this—we need to have strong growth, fair growth, sustained growth. We also have to look at how we help families balance the responsibilities at home and the responsibilities at business. So we have a very robust set of plans. And people have looked at both of our plans, have concluded that mine would create 10 million jobs and yours would lose us 3.5 million jobs, and explode the debt which would have a recession. TRUMP:  You are going to approve one of the biggest tax cuts in history. You are going to approve one of the biggest tax increases in history. You are going to drive business out. Your regulations are a disaster, and you're going to increase regulations all over the place. And by the way, my tax cut is the biggest since Ronald Reagan. I'm very proud of it. It will create tremendous numbers of new jobs. But regulations, you are going to regulate these businesses out of existence. When I go around—Lester, I tell you this, I've been all over. And when I go around, despite the tax cut, the thing—the things that business as in people like the most is the fact that I'm cutting regulation. You have regulations on top of regulations, and new companies cannot form and old companies are going out of business. And you want to increase the regulations and make them even worse. I'm going to cut regulations. I'm going to cut taxes big league, and you're going to raise taxes big league, end of story. HOLT:  Let me get you to pause right there, because we're going to move into—we're going to move into the next segment. We're going to talk taxes... CLINTON:  That can't—that can't be left to stand. HOLT:  Please just take 30 seconds and then we're going to go on. CLINTON:  I kind of assumed that there would be a lot of these charges and claims, and so... TRUMP:  Facts. CLINTON:  So we have taken the home page of my website, HillaryClinton.com , and we've turned it into a fact-checker. So if you want to see in real-time what the facts are, please go and take a look. Because what I have proposed... TRUMP:  And take a look at mine, also, and you'll see. CLINTON:  ... would not add a penny to the debt, and your plans would add $5 trillion to the debt. What I have proposed would cut regulations and streamline them for small businesses. What I have proposed would be paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy, because they have made all the gains in the economy. And I think it's time that the wealthy and corporations paid their fair share to support this country. HOLT:  Well, you just opened the next segment. TRUMP:  Well, could I just finish—I think I... [ crosstalk ] HOLT:  I'm going to give you a chance right here... TRUMP:  I think I should—you go to her website, and you take a look at her website. HOLT:  ... with a new 15-minute segment... TRUMP:  She's going to raise taxes $1.3 trillion. HOLT:  Mr. Trump, I'm going to... TRUMP:  And look at her website. You know what? It's no difference than this. She's telling us how to fight ISIS. Just go to her website. She tells you how to fight ISIS on her website. I don't think General Douglas MacArthur would like that too much. HOLT:  The next segment, we're continuing... CLINTON:  Well, at least I have a plan to fight ISIS. HOLT:  ... achieving prosperity... TRUMP:  No, no, you're telling the enemy everything you want to do. CLINTON:  No, we're not. No, we're not. TRUMP:  See, you're telling the enemy everything you want to do. No wonder you've been fighting—no wonder you've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life. CLINTON:  That's a—that's—go to the—please, fact checkers, get to work. HOLT:  OK, you are unpacking a lot here. And we're still on the issue of achieving prosperity. And I want to talk about taxes. The fundamental difference between the two of you concerns the wealthy. Secretary Clinton, you're calling for a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. I'd like you to further defend that. And, Mr. Trump, you're calling for tax cuts for the wealthy. I'd like you to defend that. And this next two-minute answer goes to you, Mr. Trump. TRUMP:  Well, I'm really calling for major jobs, because the wealthy are going create tremendous jobs. They're going to expand their companies. They're going to do a tremendous job. I'm getting rid of the carried interest provision. And if you really look, it's not a tax—it's really not a great thing for the wealthy. It's a great thing for the middle class. It's a great thing for companies to expand. And when these people are going to put billions and billions of dollars into companies, and when they're going to bring $2.5 trillion back from overseas, where they can't bring the money back, because politicians like Secretary Clinton won't allow them to bring the money back, because the taxes are so onerous, and the bureaucratic red tape, so what—is so bad. So what they're doing is they're leaving our country, and they're, believe it or not, leaving because taxes are too high and because some of them have lots of money outside of our country. And instead of bringing it back and putting the money to work, because they can't work out a deal to—and everybody agrees it should be brought back. Instead of that, they're leaving our country to get their money, because they can't bring their money back into our country, because of bureaucratic red tape, because they can't get together. Because we have—we have a president that can't sit them around a table and get them to approve something. And here's the thing. Republicans and Democrats agree that this should be done, $2.5 trillion. I happen to think it's double that. It's probably $5 trillion that we can't bring into our country, Lester. And with a little leadership, you'd get it in here very quickly, and it could be put to use on the inner cities and lots of other things, and it would be beautiful. But we have no leadership. And honestly, that starts with Secretary Clinton. HOLT:  All right. You have two minutes of the same question to defend tax increases on the wealthiest Americans, Secretary Clinton. CLINTON:  I have a feeling that by, the end of this evening, I'm going to be blamed for everything that's ever happened. TRUMP:  Why not? CLINTON:  Why not? Yeah, why not? [ laughter ] You know, just join the debate by saying more crazy things. Now, let me say this, it is absolutely the case... TRUMP:  There's nothing crazy about not letting our companies bring their money back into their country. HOLT:  This is—this is Secretary Clinton's two minutes, please. TRUMP:  Yes. CLINTON:  Yeah, well, let's start the clock again, Lester. We've looked at your tax proposals. I don't see changes in the corporate tax rates or the kinds of proposals you're referring to that would cause the repatriation, bringing back of money that's stranded overseas. I happen to support that. TRUMP:  Then you didn't read it. CLINTON:  I happen to—I happen to support that in a way that will actually work to our benefit. But when I look at what you have proposed, you have what is called now the Trump loophole, because it would so advantage you and the business you do. You've proposed an approach that has a... TRUMP:  Who gave it that name? The first I've—who gave it that name? [ crosstalk ] HOLT:  Mr. Trump, this is Secretary Clinton's two minutes. CLINTON:  ... $4 billion tax benefit for your family. And when you look at what you are proposing... TRUMP:  How much? How much for my family? CLINTON:  ... it is... TRUMP:  Lester, how much? CLINTON:  ... as I said, trumped-up trickle-down. Trickle-down did not work. It got us into the mess we were in, in 2008 and 2009. Slashing taxes on the wealthy hasn't worked. And a lot of really smart, wealthy people know that. And they are saying, hey, we need to do more to make the contributions we should be making to rebuild the middle class. I don't think top-down works in America. I think building the middle class, investing in the middle class, making college debt-free so more young people can get their education, helping people refinance their—their debt from college at a lower rate. Those are the kinds of things that will really boost the economy. Broad-based, inclusive growth is what we need in America, not more advantages for people at the very top. HOLT:  Mr. Trump, we're... TRUMP:  Typical politician. All talk, no action. Sounds good, doesn't work. Never going to happen. Our country is suffering because people like Secretary Clinton have made such bad decisions in terms of our jobs and in terms of what's going on. Now, look, we have the worst revival of an economy since the Great Depression. And believe me: We're in a bubble right now. And the only thing that looks good is the stock market, but if you raise interest rates even a little bit, that's going to come crashing down. We are in a big, fat, ugly bubble. And we better be awfully careful. And we have a Fed that's doing political things. This Janet Yellen of the Fed. The Fed is doing political—by keeping the interest rates at this level. And believe me: The day Obama goes off, and he leaves, and goes out to the golf course for the rest of his life to play golf, when they raise interest rates, you're going to see some very bad things happen, because the Fed is not doing their job. The Fed is being more political than Secretary Clinton. HOLT:  Mr. Trump, we're talking about the burden that Americans have to pay, yet you have not released your tax returns. And the reason nominees have released their returns for decades is so that voters will know if their potential president owes money to—who he owes it to and any business conflicts. Don't Americans have a right to know if there are any conflicts of interest? TRUMP:  I don't mind releasing—I'm under a routine audit. And it'll be released. And—as soon as the audit's finished, it will be released. But you will learn more about Donald Trump by going down to the federal elections, where I filed a 104-page essentially financial statement of sorts, the forms that they have. It shows income—in fact, the income—I just looked today—the income is filed at $694 million for this past year, $694 million. If you would have told me I was going to make that 15 or 20 years ago, I would have been very surprised. But that's the kind of thinking that our country needs. When we have a country that's doing so badly, that's being ripped off by every single country in the world, it's the kind of thinking that our country needs, because everybody—Lester, we have a trade deficit with all of the countries that we do business with, of almost $800 billion a year. You know what that is? That means, who's negotiating these trade deals? We have people that are political hacks negotiating our trade deals. HOLT:  The IRS says an audit... TRUMP:  Excuse me. HOLT:  ... of your taxes—you're perfectly free to release your taxes during an audit. And so the question, does the public's right to know outweigh your personal... TRUMP:  Well, I told you, I will release them as soon as the audit. Look, I've been under audit almost for 15 years. I know a lot of wealthy people that have never been audited. I said, do you get audited? I get audited almost every year. And in a way, I should be complaining. I'm not even complaining. I don't mind it. It's almost become a way of life. I get audited by the IRS. But other people don't. I will say this. We have a situation in this country that has to be taken care of. I will release my tax returns—against my lawyer's wishes—when she releases her 33,000 e-mails that have been deleted. As soon as she releases them, I will release. [ applause ] I will release my tax returns. And that's against—my lawyers, they say, "Don't do it." I will tell you this. No—in fact, watching shows, they're reading the papers. Almost every lawyer says, you don't release your returns until the audit's complete. When the audit's complete, I'll do it. But I would go against them if she releases her e-mails. HOLT:  So it's negotiable? TRUMP:  It's not negotiable, no. Let her release the e-mails. Why did she delete 33,000... HOLT:  Well, I'll let her answer that. But let me just admonish the audience one more time. There was an agreement. We did ask you to be silent, so it would be helpful for us. Secretary Clinton? CLINTON:  Well, I think you've seen another example of bait-and- switch here. For 40 years, everyone running for president has released their tax returns. You can go and see nearly, I think, 39, 40 years of our tax returns, but everyone has done it. We know the IRS has made clear there is no prohibition on releasing it when you're under audit. So you've got to ask yourself, why won't he release his tax returns? And I think there may be a couple of reasons. First, maybe he's not as rich as he says he is. Second, maybe he's not as charitable as he claims to be. Third, we don't know all of his business dealings, but we have been told through investigative reporting that he owes about $650 million to Wall Street and foreign banks. Or maybe he doesn't want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he's paid nothing in federal taxes, because the only years that anybody's ever seen were a couple of years when he had to turn them over to state authorities when he was trying to get a casino license, and they showed he didn't pay any federal income tax. TRUMP:  That makes me smart. CLINTON:  So if he's paid zero, that means zero for troops, zero for vets, zero for schools or health. And I think probably he's not all that enthusiastic about having the rest of our country see what the real reasons are, because it must be something really important, even terrible, that he's trying to hide. And the financial disclosure statements, they don't give you the tax rate. They don't give you all the details that tax returns would. And it just seems to me that this is something that the American people deserve to see. And I have no reason to believe that he's ever going to release his tax returns, because there's something he's hiding. And we'll guess. We'll keep guessing at what it might be that he's hiding. But I think the question is, were he ever to get near the White House, what would be those conflicts? Who does he owe money to? Well, he owes you the answers to that, and he should provide them. HOLT:  He also—he also raised the issue of your e-mails. Do you want to respond to that? CLINTON:  I do. You know, I made a mistake using a private e- mail. TRUMP:  That's for sure. CLINTON:  And if I had to do it over again, I would, obviously, do it differently. But I'm not going to make any excuses. It was a mistake, and I take responsibility for that. HOLT:  Mr. Trump? TRUMP:  That was more than a mistake. That was done purposely. OK? That was not a mistake. That was done purposely. When you have your staff taking the Fifth Amendment, taking the Fifth so they're not prosecuted, when you have the man that set up the illegal server taking the Fifth, I think it's disgraceful. And believe me, this country thinks it's—really thinks it's disgraceful, also. As far as my tax returns, you don't learn that much from tax returns. That I can tell you. You learn a lot from financial disclosure. And you should go down and take a look at that. The other thing, I'm extremely underleveraged. The report that said $650—which, by the way, a lot of friends of mine that know my business say, boy, that's really not a lot of money. It's not a lot of money relative to what I had. The buildings that were in question, they said in the same report, which was—actually, it wasn't even a bad story, to be honest with you, but the buildings are worth $3.9 billion. And the $650 isn't even on that. But it's not $650. It's much less than that. But I could give you a list of banks, I would—if that would help you, I would give you a list of banks. These are very fine institutions, very fine banks. I could do that very quickly. I am very underleveraged. I have a great company. I have a tremendous income. And the reason I say that is not in a braggadocios way. It's because it's about time that this country had somebody running it that has an idea about money. When we have $20 trillion in debt, and our country's a mess, you know, it's one thing to have $20 trillion in debt and our roads are good and our bridges are good and everything's in great shape, our airports. Our airports are like from a third world country. You land at LaGuardia, you land at Kennedy, you land at LAX, you land at Newark, and you come in from Dubai and Qatar and you see these incredible—you come in from China, you see these incredible airports, and you land—we've become a third world country. So the worst of all things has happened. We owe $20 trillion, and we're a mess. We haven't even started. And we've spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, according to a report that I just saw. Whether it's 6 or 5, but it looks like it's 6, $6 trillion in the Middle East, we could have rebuilt our country twice. And it's really a shame. And it's politicians like Secretary Clinton that have caused this problem. Our country has tremendous problems. We're a debtor nation. We're a serious debtor nation. And we have a country that needs new roads, new tunnels, new bridges, new airports, new schools, new hospitals. And we don't have the money, because it's been squandered on so many of your ideas. HOLT:  We'll let you respond and we'll move on to the next segment. CLINTON:  And maybe because you haven't paid any federal income tax for a lot of years. [ applause ] And the other thing I think is important... TRUMP:  It would be squandered, too, believe me. CLINTON:  ... is if your—if your main claim to be president of the United States is your business, then I think we should talk about that. You know, your campaign manager said that you built a lot of businesses on the backs of little guys. And, indeed, I have met a lot of the people who were stiffed by you and your businesses, Donald. I've met dishwashers, painters, architects, glass installers, marble installers, drapery installers, like my dad was, who you refused to pay when they finished the work that you asked them to do. We have an architect in the audience who designed one of your clubhouses at one of your golf courses. It's a beautiful facility. It immediately was put to use. And you wouldn't pay what the man needed to be paid, what he was charging you to do... TRUMP:  Maybe he didn't do a good job and I was unsatisfied with his work... CLINTON:  Well, to... TRUMP:  Which our country should do, too. CLINTON:  Do the thousands of people that you have stiffed over the course of your business not deserve some kind of apology from someone who has taken their labor, taken the goods that they produced, and then refused to pay them? I can only say that I'm certainly relieved that my late father never did business with you. He provided a good middle-class life for us, but the people he worked for, he expected the bargain to be kept on both sides. And when we talk about your business, you've taken business bankruptcy six times. There are a lot of great businesspeople that have never taken bankruptcy once. You call yourself the King of Debt. You talk about leverage. You even at one time suggested that you would try to negotiate down the national debt of the United States. TRUMP:  Wrong. Wrong. CLINTON:  Well, sometimes there's not a direct transfer of skills from business to government, but sometimes what happened in business would be really bad for government. HOLT:  Let's let Mr. Trump... CLINTON:  And we need to be very clear about that. TRUMP:  So, yeah, I think—I do think it's time. Look, it's all words, it's all sound bites. I built an unbelievable company. Some of the greatest assets anywhere in the world, real estate assets anywhere in the world, beyond the United States, in Europe, lots of different places. It's an unbelievable company. But on occasion, four times, we used certain laws that are there. And when Secretary Clinton talks about people that didn't get paid, first of all, they did get paid a lot, but taken advantage of the laws of the nation. Now, if you want to change the laws, you've been there a long time, change the laws. But I take advantage of the laws of the nation because I'm running a company. My obligation right now is to do well for myself, my family, my employees, for my companies. And that's what I do. But what she doesn't say is that tens of thousands of people that are unbelievably happy and that love me. I'll give you an example. We're just opening up on Pennsylvania Avenue right next to the White House, so if I don't get there one way, I'm going to get to Pennsylvania Avenue another. But we're opening the Old Post Office. Under budget, ahead of schedule, saved tremendous money. I'm a year ahead of schedule. And that's what this country should be doing. We build roads and they cost two and three and four times what they're supposed to cost. We buy products for our military and they come in at costs that are so far above what they were supposed to be, because we don't have people that know what they're doing. When we look at the budget, the budget is bad to a large extent because we have people that have no idea as to what to do and how to buy. The Trump International is way under budget and way ahead of schedule. And we should be able to do that for our country. HOLT:  Well, we're well behind schedule, so I want to move to our next segment. We move into our next segment talking about America's direction. And let's start by talking about race. The share of Americans who say race relations are bad in this country is the highest it's been in decades, much of it amplified by shootings of African-Americans by police, as we've seen recently in Charlotte and Tulsa. Race has been a big issue in this campaign, and one of you is going to have to bridge a very wide and bitter gap. So how do you heal the divide? Secretary Clinton, you get two minutes on this. CLINTON:  Well, you're right. Race remains a significant challenge in our country. Unfortunately, race still determines too much, often determines where people live, determines what kind of education in their public schools they can get, and, yes, it determines how they're treated in the criminal justice system. We've just seen those two tragic examples in both Tulsa and Charlotte. And we've got to do several things at the same time. We have to restore trust between communities and the police. We have to work to make sure that our police are using the best training, the best techniques, that they're well prepared to use force only when necessary. Everyone should be respected by the law, and everyone should respect the law. Right now, that's not the case in a lot of our neighborhoods. So I have, ever since the first day of my campaign, called for criminal justice reform. I've laid out a platform that I think would begin to remedy some of the problems we have in the criminal justice system. But we also have to recognize, in addition to the challenges that we face with policing, there are so many good, brave police officers who equally want reform. So we have to bring communities together in order to begin working on that as a mutual goal. And we've got to get guns out of the hands of people who should not have them. The gun epidemic is the leading cause of death of young African- American men, more than the next nine causes put together. So we have to do two things, as I said. We have to restore trust. We have to work with the police. We have to make sure they respect the communities and the communities respect them. And we have to tackle the plague of gun violence, which is a big contributor to a lot of the problems that we're seeing today. HOLT:  All right, Mr. Trump, you have two minutes. How do you heal the divide? TRUMP:  Well, first of all, Secretary Clinton doesn't want to use a couple of words, and that's law and order. And we need law and order. If we don't have it, we're not going to have a country. And when I look at what's going on in Charlotte, a city I love, a city where I have investments, when I look at what's going on throughout various parts of our country, whether it's—I mean, I can just keep naming them all day long—we need law and order in our country. I just got today the, as you know, the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police, we just—just came in. We have endorsements from, I think, almost every police group, very—I mean, a large percentage of them in the United States. We have a situation where we have our inner cities, African- Americans, Hispanics are living in he'll because it's so dangerous. You walk down the street, you get shot. In Chicago, they've had thousands of shootings, thousands since January 1st. Thousands of shootings. And I'm saying, where is this? Is this a war-torn country? What are we doing? And we have to stop the violence. We have to bring back law and order. In a place like Chicago, where thousands of people have been killed, thousands over the last number of years, in fact, almost 4,000 have been killed since Barack Obama became president, over—almost 4,000 people in Chicago have been killed. We have to bring back law and order. Now, whether or not in a place like Chicago you do stop and frisk, which worked very well, Mayor Giuliani is here, worked very well in New York. It brought the crime rate way down. But you take the gun away from criminals that shouldn't be having it. We have gangs roaming the street. And in many cases, they're illegally here, illegal immigrants. And they have guns. And they shoot people. And we have to be very strong. And we have to be very vigilant. We have to be—we have to know what we're doing. Right now, our police, in many cases, are afraid to do anything. We have to protect our inner cities, because African-American communities are being decimated by crime, decimated. HOLT:  Your two—your two minutes expired, but I do want to follow up. Stop-and-frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men. TRUMP:  No, you're wrong. It went before a judge, who was a very against-police judge. It was taken away from her. And our mayor, our new mayor, refused to go forward with the case. They would have won an appeal. If you look at it, throughout the country, there are many places where it's allowed. HOLT:  The argument is that it's a form of racial profiling. TRUMP:  No, the argument is that we have to take the guns away from these people that have them and they are bad people that shouldn't have them. These are felons. These are people that are bad people that shouldn't be—when you have 3,000 shootings in Chicago from January 1st, when you have 4,000 people killed in Chicago by guns, from the beginning of the presidency of Barack Obama, his hometown, you have to have stop-and-frisk. You need more police. You need a better community, you know, relation. You don't have good community relations in Chicago. It's terrible. I have property there. It's terrible what's going on in Chicago. But when you look—and Chicago's not the only—you go to Ferguson, you go to so many different places. You need better relationships. I agree with Secretary Clinton on this. You need better relationships between the communities and the police, because in some cases, it's not good. But you look at Dallas, where the relationships were really studied, the relationships were really a beautiful thing, and then five police officers were killed one night very violently. So there's some bad things going on. Some really bad things. HOLT:  Secretary Clinton... TRUMP:  But we need—Lester, we need law and order. And we need law and order in the inner cities, because the people that are most affected by what's happening are African-American and Hispanic people. And it's very unfair to them what our politicians are allowing to happen. HOLT:  Secretary Clinton? CLINTON:  Well, I've heard—I've heard Donald say this at his rallies, and it's really unfortunate that he paints such a dire negative picture of black communities in our country. TRUMP:  Ugh. CLINTON:  You know, the vibrancy of the black church, the black businesses that employ so many people, the opportunities that so many families are working to provide for their kids. There's a lot that we should be proud of and we should be supporting and lifting up. But we do always have to make sure we keep people safe. There are the right ways of doing it, and then there are ways that are ineffective. Stop-and-frisk was found to be unconstitutional and, in part, because it was ineffective. It did not do what it needed to do. Now, I believe in community policing. And, in fact, violent crime is one-half of what it was in 1991. Property crime is down 40 percent. We just don't want to see it creep back up. We've had 25 years of very good cooperation. But there were some problems, some unintended consequences. Too many young African-American and Latino men ended up in jail for nonviolent offenses. And it's just a fact that if you're a young African-American man and you do the same thing as a young white man, you are more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted, and incarcerated. So we've got to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice system. We cannot just say law and order. We have to say—we have to come forward with a plan that is going to divert people from the criminal justice system, deal with mandatory minimum sentences, which have put too many people away for too long for doing too little. We need to have more second chance programs. I'm glad that we're ending private prisons in the federal system; I want to see them ended in the state system. You shouldn't have a profit motivation to fill prison cells with young Americans. So there are some positive ways we can work on this. And I believe strongly that commonsense gun safety measures would assist us. Right now—and this is something Donald has supported, along with the gun lobby—right now, we've got too many military- style weapons on the streets. In a lot of places, our police are outgunned. We need comprehensive background checks, and we need to keep guns out of the hands of those who will do harm. And we finally need to pass a prohibition on anyone who's on the terrorist watch list from being able to buy a gun in our country. If you're too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun. So there are things we can do, and we ought to do it in a bipartisan way. HOLT:  Secretary Clinton, last week, you said we've got to do everything possible to improve policing, to go right at implicit bias. Do you believe that police are implicitly biased against black people? CLINTON:  Lester, I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police. I think, unfortunately, too many of us in our great country jump to conclusions about each other. And therefore, I think we need all of us to be asking hard questions about, you know, why am I feeling this way? But when it comes to policing, since it can have literally fatal consequences, I have said, in my first budget, we would put money into that budget to help us deal with implicit bias by retraining a lot of our police officers. I've met with a group of very distinguished, experienced police chiefs a few weeks ago. They admit it's an issue. They've got a lot of concerns. Mental health is one of the biggest concerns, because now police are having to handle a lot of really difficult mental health problems on the street. They want support, they want more training, they want more assistance. And I think the federal government could be in a position where we would offer and provide that. HOLT:  Mr. Trump... TRUMP:  I'd like to respond to that. HOLT:  Please. TRUMP:  First of all, I agree, and a lot of people even within my own party want to give certain rights to people on watch lists and no- fly lists. I agree with you. When a person is on a watch list or a no-fly list, and I have the endorsement of the NRA, which I'm very proud of. These are very, very good people, and they're protecting the Second Amendment. But I think we have to look very strongly at no-fly lists and watch lists. And when people are on there, even if they shouldn't be on there, we'll help them, we'll help them legally, we'll help them get off. But I tend to agree with that quite strongly. I do want to bring up the fact that you were the one that brought up the words super-predator about young black youth. And that's a term that I think was a—it's—it's been horribly met, as you know. I think you've apologized for it. But I think it was a terrible thing to say. And when it comes to stop-and-frisk, you know, you're talking about takes guns away. Well, I'm talking about taking guns away from gangs and people that use them. And I don't think—I really don't think you disagree with me on this, if you want to know the truth. I think maybe there's a political reason why you can't say it, but I really don't believe—in New York City, stop-and-frisk, we had 2,200 murders, and stop-and-frisk brought it down to 500 murders. Five hundred murders is a lot of murders. It's hard to believe, 500 is like supposed to be good? But we went from 2,200 to 500. And it was continued on by Mayor Bloomberg. And it was terminated by current mayor. But stop-and- frisk had a tremendous impact on the safety of New York City. Tremendous beyond belief. So when you say it has no impact, it really did. It had a very, very big impact. CLINTON:  Well, it's also fair to say, if we're going to talk about mayors, that under the current mayor, crime has continued to drop, including murders. So there is... TRUMP:  No, you're wrong. You're wrong. CLINTON:  No, I'm not. TRUMP:  Murders are up. All right. You check it. CLINTON:  New York—New York has done an excellent job. And I give credit—I give credit across the board going back two mayors, two police chiefs, because it has worked. And other communities need to come together to do what will work, as well. Look, one murder is too many. But it is important that we learn about what has been effective. And not go to things that sound good that really did not have the kind of impact that we would want. Who disagrees with keeping neighborhoods safe? But let's also add, no one should disagree about respecting the rights of young men who live in those neighborhoods. And so we need to do a better job of working, again, with the communities, faith communities, business communities, as well as the police to try to deal with this problem. HOLT:  This conversation is about race. And so, Mr. Trump, I have to ask you for five... TRUMP:  I'd like to just respond, if I might. HOLT:  Please—20 seconds. TRUMP:  I'd just like to respond. HOLT:  Please respond, then I've got a quick follow-up for you. TRUMP:  I will. Look, the African-American community has been let down by our politicians. They talk good around election time, like right now, and after the election, they said, see ya later, I'll see you in four years. The African-American community—because—look, the community within the inner cities has been so badly treated. They've been abused and used in order to get votes by Democrat politicians, because that's what it is. They've controlled these communities for up to 100 years. HOLT:  Mr. Trump, let me... [ crosstalk ] CLINTON:  Well, I—I do think... TRUMP:  And I will tell you, you look at the inner cities—and I just left Detroit, and I just left Philadelphia, and I just—you know, you've seen me, I've been all over the place. You decided to stay home, and that's OK. But I will tell you, I've been all over. And I've met some of the greatest people I'll ever meet within these communities. And they are very, very upset with what their politicians have told them and what their politicians have done. HOLT:  Mr. Trump, I... CLINTON:  I think—I think—I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And, yes, I did. And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president. And I think that's a good thing. [ applause ] HOLT:  Mr. Trump, for five years, you perpetuated a false claim that the nation's first black president was not a natural-born citizen. You questioned his legitimacy. In the last couple of weeks, you acknowledged what most Americans have accepted for years: The president was born in the United States. Can you tell us what took you so long? TRUMP:  I'll tell you very—well, just very simple to say. Sidney Blumenthal works for the campaign and close—very close friend of Secretary Clinton. And her campaign manager, Patti Doyle, went to—during the campaign, her campaign against President Obama, fought very hard. And you can go look it up, and you can check it out. And if you look at CNN this past week, Patti Solis Doyle was on Wolf Blitzer saying that this happened. Blumenthal sent McClatchy, highly respected reporter at McClatchy, to Kenya to find out about it. They were pressing it very hard. She failed to get the birth certificate. When I got involved, I didn't fail. I got him to give the birth certificate. So I'm satisfied with it. And I'll tell you why I'm satisfied with it. HOLT:  That was... [ crosstalk ] TRUMP:  Because I want to get on to defeating ISIS, because I want to get on to creating jobs, because I want to get on to having a strong border, because I want to get on to things that are very important to me and that are very important to the country. HOLT:  I will let you respond. It's important. But I just want to get the answer here. The birth certificate was produced in 2011. You've continued to tell the story and question the president's legitimacy in 2012, '13, '14, '15... TRUMP:  Yeah. HOLT:  .... as recently as January. So the question is, what changed your mind? TRUMP:  Well, nobody was pressing it, nobody was caring much about it. I figured you'd ask the question tonight, of course. But nobody was caring much about it. But I was the one that got him to produce the birth certificate. And I think I did a good job. Secretary Clinton also fought it. I mean, you know—now, everybody in mainstream is going to say, oh, that's not true. Look, it's true. Sidney Blumenthal sent a reporter—you just have to take a look at CNN, the last week, the interview with your former campaign manager. And she was involved. But just like she can't bring back jobs, she can't produce. HOLT:  I'm sorry. I'm just going to follow up—and I will let you respond to that, because there's a lot there. But we're talking about racial healing in this segment. What do you say to Americans, people of color who... [ crosstalk ] TRUMP:  Well, it was very—I say nothing. I say nothing, because I was able to get him to produce it. He should have produced it a long time before. I say nothing. But let me just tell you. When you talk about healing, I think that I've developed very, very good relationships over the last little while with the African-American community. I think you can see that. And I feel that they really wanted me to come to that conclusion. And I think I did a great job and a great service not only for the country, but even for the president, in getting him to produce his birth certificate. HOLT:  Secretary Clinton? CLINTON:  Well, just listen to what you heard. [ laughter ] And clearly, as Donald just admitted, he knew he was going to stand on this debate stage, and Lester Holt was going to be asking us questions, so he tried to put the whole racist birther lie to bed. But it can't be dismissed that easily. He has really started his political activity based on this racist lie that our first black president was not an American citizen. There was absolutely no evidence for it, but he persisted, he persisted year after year, because some of his supporters, people that he was trying to bring into his fold, apparently believed it or wanted to believe it. But, remember, Donald started his career back in 1973 being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination because he would not rent apartments in one of his developments to African-Americans, and he made sure that the people who worked for him understood that was the policy. He actually was sued twice by the Justice Department. So he has a long record of engaging in racist behavior. And the birther lie was a very hurtful one. You know, Barack Obama is a man of great dignity. And I could tell how much it bothered him and annoyed him that this was being touted and used against him. But I like to remember what Michelle Obama said in her amazing speech at our Democratic National Convention: When they go low, we go high. And Barack Obama went high, despite Donald Trump's best efforts to bring him down. HOLT:  Mr. Trump, you can respond and we're going to move on to the next segment. TRUMP:  I would love to respond. First of all, I got to watch in preparing for this some of your debates against Barack Obama. You treated him with terrible disrespect. And I watched the way you talk now about how lovely everything is and how wonderful you are. It doesn't work that way. You were after him, you were trying to—you even sent out or your campaign sent out pictures of him in a certain garb, very famous pictures. I don't think you can deny that. But just last week, your campaign manager said it was true. So when you tried to act holier than thou, it really doesn't work. It really doesn't. Now, as far as the lawsuit, yes, when I was very young, I went into my father's company, had a real estate company in Brooklyn and Queens, and we, along with many, many other companies throughout the country—it was a federal lawsuit—were sued. We settled the suit with zero—with no admission of guilt. It was very easy to do. I notice you bring that up a lot. And, you know, I also notice the very nasty commercials that you do on me in so many different ways, which I don't do on you. Maybe I'm trying to save the money. But, frankly, I look—I look at that, and I say, isn't that amazing? Because I settled that lawsuit with no admission of guilt, but that was a lawsuit brought against many real estate firms, and it's just one of those things. I'll go one step further. In Palm Beach, Florida, tough community, a brilliant community, a wealthy community, probably the wealthiest community there is in the world, I opened a club, and really got great credit for it. No discrimination against African- Americans, against Muslims, against anybody. And it's a tremendously successful club. And I'm so glad I did it. And I have been given great credit for what I did. And I'm very, very proud of it. And that's the way I feel. That is the true way I feel. HOLT:  Our next segment is called "Securing America." We want to start with a 21st century war happening every day in this country. Our institutions are under cyber attack, and our secrets are being stolen. So my question is, who's behind it? And how do we fight it? Secretary Clinton, this answer goes to you. CLINTON:  Well, I think cyber security, cyber warfare will be one of the biggest challenges facing the next president, because clearly we're facing at this point two different kinds of adversaries. There are the independent hacking groups that do it mostly for commercial reasons to try to steal information that they can use to make money. But increasingly, we are seeing cyber attacks coming from states, organs of states. The most recent and troubling of these has been Russia. There's no doubt now that Russia has used cyber attacks against all kinds of organizations in our country, and I am deeply concerned about this. I know Donald's very praiseworthy of Vladimir Putin, but Putin is playing a really... [ crosstalk ] ...tough, long game here. And one of the things he's done is to let loose cyber attackers to hack into government files, to hack into personal files, hack into the Democratic National Committee. And we recently have learned that, you know, that this is one of their preferred methods of trying to wreak havoc and collect information. We need to make it very clear—whether it's Russia, China, Iran or anybody else—the United States has much greater capacity. And we are not going to sit idly by and permit state actors to go after our information, our private-sector information or our public-sector information. And we're going to have to make it clear that we don't want to use the kinds of tools that we have. We don't want to engage in a different kind of warfare. But we will defend the citizens of this country. And the Russians need to understand that. I think they've been treating it as almost a probing, how far would we go, how much would we do. And that's why I was so—I was so shocked when Donald publicly invited Putin to hack into Americans. That is just unacceptable. It's one of the reasons why 50 national security officials who served in Republican information—in administrations... HOLT:  Your two minutes have expired. CLINTON:  ... have said that Donald is unfit to be the commander- in-chief. It's comments like that that really worry people who understand the threats that we face. HOLT:  Mr. Trump, you have two minutes and the same question. Who's behind it? And how do we fight it? TRUMP:  I do want to say that I was just endorsed—and more are coming next week—it will be over 200 admirals, many of them here—admirals and generals endorsed me to lead this country. That just happened, and many more are coming. And I'm very proud of it. In addition, I was just endorsed by ICE. They've never endorsed anybody before on immigration. I was just endorsed by ICE. I was just recently endorsed—16,500 Border Patrol agents. So when Secretary Clinton talks about this, I mean, I'll take the admirals and I'll take the generals any day over the political hacks that I see that have led our country so brilliantly over the last 10 years with their knowledge. OK? Because look at the mess that we're in. Look at the mess that we're in. As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what Secretary Clinton said. We should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we're not. I don't think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. She's saying Russia, Russia, Russia, but I don't—maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK? You don't know who broke in to DNC. But what did we learn with DNC? We learned that Bernie Sanders was taken advantage of by your people, by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Look what happened to her. But Bernie Sanders was taken advantage of. That's what we learned. Now, whether that was Russia, whether that was China, whether it was another country, we don't know, because the truth is, under President Obama we've lost control of things that we used to have control over. We came in with the Internet, we came up with the Internet, and I think Secretary Clinton and myself would agree very much, when you look at what ISIS is doing with the Internet, they're beating us at our own game. ISIS. So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is—it is a huge problem. I have a son. He's 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it's unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it's hardly doable. But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing. But that's true throughout our whole governmental society. We have so many things that we have to do better, Lester, and certainly cyber is one of them. HOLT:  Secretary Clinton? CLINTON:  Well, I think there are a number of issues that we should be addressing. I have put forth a plan to defeat ISIS. It does involve going after them online. I think we need to do much more with our tech companies to prevent ISIS and their operatives from being able to use the Internet to radicalize, even direct people in our country and Europe and elsewhere. But we also have to intensify our air strikes against ISIS and eventually support our Arab and Kurdish partners to be able to actually take out ISIS in Raqqa, end their claim of being a Caliphate. We're making progress. Our military is assisting in Iraq. And we're hoping that within the year we'll be able to push ISIS out of Iraq and then, you know, really squeeze them in Syria. But we have to be cognizant of the fact that they've had foreign fighters coming to volunteer for them, foreign money, foreign weapons, so we have to make this the top priority. And I would also do everything possible to take out their leadership. I was involved in a number of efforts to take out Al Qaida leadership when I was secretary of state, including, of course, taking out bin Laden. And I think we need to go after Baghdadi, as well, make that one of our organizing principles. Because we've got to defeat ISIS, and we've got to do everything we can to disrupt their propaganda efforts online. HOLT:  You mention ISIS, and we think of ISIS certainly as over there, but there are American citizens who have been inspired to commit acts of terror on American soil, the latest incident, of course, the bombings we just saw in New York and New Jersey, the knife attack at a mall in Minnesota, in the last year, deadly attacks in San Bernardino and Orlando. I'll ask this to both of you. Tell us specifically how you would prevent homegrown attacks by American citizens, Mr. Trump? TRUMP:  Well, first I have to say one thing, very important. Secretary Clinton is talking about taking out ISIS. "We will take out ISIS." Well, President Obama and Secretary Clinton created a vacuum the way they got out of Iraq, because they got out—what, they shouldn't have been in, but once they got in, the way they got out was a disaster. And ISIS was formed. So she talks about taking them out. She's been doing it a long time. She's been trying to take them out for a long time. But they wouldn't have even been formed if they left some troops behind, like 10,000 or maybe something more than that. And then you wouldn't have had them. Or, as I've been saying for a long time, and I think you'll agree, because I said it to you once, had we taken the oil—and we should have taken the oil—ISIS would not have been able to form either, because the oil was their primary source of income. And now they have the oil all over the place, including the oil—a lot of the oil in Libya, which was another one of her disasters. HOLT:  Secretary Clinton? CLINTON:  Well, I hope the fact-checkers are turning up the volume and really working hard. Donald supported the invasion of Iraq. TRUMP:  Wrong. CLINTON:  That is absolutely proved over and over again. TRUMP:  Wrong. Wrong. CLINTON:  He actually advocated for the actions we took in Libya and urged that Gadhafi be taken out, after actually doing some business with him one time. But the larger point—and he says this constantly—is George W. Bush made the agreement about when American troops would leave Iraq, not Barack Obama. And the only way that American troops could have stayed in Iraq is to get an agreement from the then-Iraqi government that would have protected our troops, and the Iraqi government would not give that. But let's talk about the question you asked, Lester. The question you asked is, what do we do here in the United States? That's the most important part of this. How do we prevent attacks? How do we protect our people? And I think we've got to have an intelligence surge, where we are looking for every scrap of information. I was so proud of law enforcement in New York, in Minnesota, in New Jersey. You know, they responded so quickly, so professionally to the attacks that occurred by Rahami. And they brought him down. And we may find out more information because he is still alive, which may prove to be an intelligence benefit. So we've got to do everything we can to vacuum up intelligence from Europe, from the Middle East. That means we've got to work more closely with our allies, and that's something that Donald has been very dismissive of. We're working with NATO, the longest military alliance in the history of the world, to really turn our attention to terrorism. We're working with our friends in the Middle East, many of which, as you know, are Muslim majority nations. Donald has consistently insulted Muslims abroad, Muslims at home, when we need to be cooperating with Muslim nations and with the American Muslim community. They're on the front lines. They can provide information to us that we might not get anywhere else. They need to have close working cooperation with law enforcement in these communities, not be alienated and pushed away as some of Donald's rhetoric, unfortunately, has led to. HOLT:  Mr. Trump... TRUMP:  Well, I have to respond. HOLT:  Please respond. TRUMP:  The secretary said very strongly about working with—we've been working with them for many years, and we have the greatest mess anyone's ever seen. You look at the Middle East, it's a total mess. Under your direction, to a large extent. But you look at the Middle East, you started the Iran deal, that's another beauty where you have a country that was ready to fall, I mean, they were doing so badly. They were choking on the sanctions. And now they're going to be actually probably a major power at some point pretty soon, the way they're going. But when you look at NATO, I was asked on a major show, what do you think of NATO? And you have to understand, I'm a businessperson. I did really well. But I have common sense. And I said, well, I'll tell you. I haven't given lots of thought to NATO. But two things. Number one, the 28 countries of NATO, many of them aren't paying their fair share. Number two—and that bothers me, because we should be asking—we're defending them, and they should at least be paying us what they're supposed to be paying by treaty and contract. And, number two, I said, and very strongly, NATO could be obsolete, because—and I was very strong on this, and it was actually covered very accurately in the New York Times, which is unusual for the New York Times, to be honest—but I said, they do not focus on terror. And I was very strong. And I said it numerous times. And about four months ago, I read on the front page of the Wall Street Journal that NATO is opening up a major terror division. And I think that's great. And I think we should get—because we pay approximately 73 percent of the cost of NATO. It's a lot of money to protect other people. But I'm all for NATO. But I said they have to focus on terror, also. And they're going to do that. And that was—believe me—I'm sure I'm not going to get credit for it—but that was largely because of what I was saying and my criticism of NATO. I think we have to get NATO to go into the Middle East with us, in addition to surrounding nations, and we have to knock the hell out of ISIS, and we have to do it fast, when ISIS formed in this vacuum created by Barack Obama and Secretary Clinton. And believe me, you were the ones that took out the troops. Not only that, you named the day. They couldn't believe it. They sat back probably and said, I can't believe it. They said... CLINTON:  Lester, we've covered... TRUMP:  No, wait a minute. CLINTON:  We've covered this ground. TRUMP:  When they formed, when they formed, this is something that never should have happened. It should have never happened. Now, you're talking about taking out ISIS. But you were there, and you were secretary of state when it was a little infant. Now it's in over 30 countries. And you're going to stop them? I don't think so. HOLT:  Mr. Trump, a lot of these are judgment questions. You had supported the war in Iraq before the invasion. What makes your... TRUMP:  I did not support the war in Iraq. HOLT:  In 2002... TRUMP:  That is a mainstream media nonsense put out by her, because she—frankly, I think the best person in her campaign is mainstream media. HOLT:  My question is, since you supported it... TRUMP:  Just—would you like to hear... HOLT:  ... why is your—why is your judgment... TRUMP:  Wait a minute. I was against the war in Iraq. Just so you put it out. HOLT:  The record shows otherwise, but why—why was... TRUMP:  The record does not show that. HOLT:  Why was—is your judgment any... TRUMP:  The record shows that I'm right. When I did an interview with Howard Stern, very lightly, first time anyone's asked me that, I said, very lightly, I don't know, maybe, who knows? Essentially. I then did an interview with Neil Cavuto. We talked about the economy is more important. I then spoke to Sean Hannity, which everybody refuses to call Sean Hannity. I had numerous conversations with Sean Hannity at Fox. And Sean Hannity said—and he called me the other day—and I spoke to him about it—he said you were totally against the war, because he was for the war. HOLT:  Why is your judgment better than... TRUMP:  And when he—excuse me. And that was before the war started. Sean Hannity said very strongly to me and other people—he's willing to say it, but nobody wants to call him. I was against the war. He said, you used to have fights with me, because Sean was in favor of the war. And I understand that side, also, not very much, because we should have never been there. But nobody called Sean Hannity. And then they did an article in a major magazine, shortly after the war started. I think in '04. But they did an article which had me totally against the war in Iraq. And one of your compatriots said, you know, whether it was before or right after, Trump was definitely—because if you read this article, there's no doubt. But if somebody—and I'll ask the press—if somebody would call up Sean Hannity, this was before the war started. He and I used to have arguments about the war. I said, it's a terrible and a stupid thing. It's going to destabilize the Middle East. And that's exactly what it's done. It's been a disaster. HOLT:  My reference was to what you had said in 2002, and my question was... TRUMP:  No, no. You didn't hear what I said. HOLT:  Why is your judgment—why is your judgment any different than Mrs. Clinton's judgment? TRUMP:  Well, I have much better judgment than she does. There's no question about that. I also have a much better temperament than she has, you know? [ laughter ] I have a much better—she spent—let me tell you—she spent hundreds of millions of dollars on an advertising—you know, they get Madison Avenue into a room, they put names—oh, temperament, let's go after—I think my strongest asset, maybe by far, is my temperament. I have a winning temperament. I know how to win. She does not have a... HOLT:  Secretary Clinton? TRUMP:  Wait. The AFL-CIO the other day, behind the blue screen, I don't know who you were talking to, Secretary Clinton, but you were totally out of control. I said, there's a person with a temperament that's got a problem. HOLT:  Secretary Clinton? CLINTON:  Whew, OK. [ laughter ] Let's talk about two important issues that were briefly mentioned by Donald, first, NATO. You know, NATO as a military alliance has something called Article 5, and basically it says this: An attack on one is an attack on all. And you know the only time it's ever been invoked? After 9/11, when the 28 nations of NATO said that they would go to Afghanistan with us to fight terrorism, something that they still are doing by our side. With respect to Iran, when I became secretary of state, Iran was weeks away from having enough nuclear material to form a bomb. They had mastered the nuclear fuel cycle under the Bush administration. They had built covert facilities. They had stocked them with centrifuges that were whirling away. And we had sanctioned them. I voted for every sanction against Iran when I was in the Senate, but it wasn't enough. So I spent a year-and-a-half putting together a coalition that included Russia and China to impose the toughest sanctions on Iran. And we did drive them to the negotiating table. And my successor, John Kerry, and President Obama got a deal that put a lid on Iran's nuclear program without firing a single shot. That's diplomacy. That's coalition-building. That's working with other nations. The other day, I saw Donald saying that there were some Iranian sailors on a ship in the waters off of Iran, and they were taunting American sailors who were on a nearby ship. He said, you know, if they taunted our sailors, I'd blow them out of the water and start another war. That's not good judgment. TRUMP:  That would not start a war. CLINTON:  That is not the right temperament to be commander-in- chief, to be taunted. And the worst part... TRUMP:  No, they were taunting us. CLINTON:  ... of what we heard Donald say has been about nuclear weapons. He has said repeatedly that he didn't care if other nations got nuclear weapons, Japan, South Korea, even Saudi Arabia. It has been the policy of the United States, Democrats and Republicans, to do everything we could to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons. He even said, well, you know, if there were nuclear war in East Asia, well, you know, that's fine... TRUMP:  Wrong. CLINTON:  ... have a good time, folks. TRUMP:  It's lies. CLINTON:  And, in fact, his cavalier attitude about nuclear weapons is so deeply troubling. That is the number-one threat we face in the world. And it becomes particularly threatening if terrorists ever get their hands on any nuclear material. So a man who can be provoked by a tweet should not have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes, as far as I think anyone with any sense about this should be concerned. TRUMP:  That line's getting a little bit old, I must say. I would like to... CLINTON:  It's a good one, though. It well describes the problem. [ laughter ] TRUMP:  It's not an accurate one at all. It's not an accurate one. So I just want to give a lot of things—and just to respond. I agree with her on one thing. The single greatest problem the world has is nuclear armament, nuclear weapons, not global warming, like you think and your—your president thinks. Nuclear is the single greatest threat. Just to go down the list, we defend Japan, we defend Germany, we defend South Korea, we defend Saudi Arabia, we defend countries. They do not pay us. But they should be paying us, because we are providing tremendous service and we're losing a fortune. That's why we're losing—we're losing—we lose on everything. I say, who makes these—we lose on everything. All I said, that it's very possible that if they don't pay a fair share, because this isn't 40 years ago where we could do what we're doing. We can't defend Japan, a behemoth, selling us cars by the million... HOLT:  We need to move on. TRUMP:  Well, wait, but it's very important. All I said was, they may have to defend themselves or they have to help us out. We're a country that owes $20 trillion. They have to help us out. HOLT:  Our last... TRUMP:  As far as the nuclear is concerned, I agree. It is the single greatest threat that this country has. HOLT:  Which leads to my next question, as we enter our last segment here on the, still on the subject of securing America. On nuclear weapons, President Obama reportedly considered changing the nation's longstanding policy on first use. Do you support the current policy? Mr. Trump, you have two minutes on that. TRUMP:  Well, I have to say that, you know, for what Secretary Clinton was saying about nuclear with Russia, she's very cavalier in the way she talks about various countries. But Russia has been expanding their—they have a much newer capability than we do. We have not been updating from the new standpoint. I looked the other night. I was seeing B-52s, they're old enough that your father, your grandfather could be flying them. We are not—we are not keeping up with other countries. I would like everybody to end it, just get rid of it. But I would certainly not do first strike. I think that once the nuclear alternative happens, it's over. At the same time, we have to be prepared. I can't take anything off the table. Because you look at some of these countries, you look at North Korea, we're doing nothing there. China should solve that problem for us. China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea. And by the way, another one powerful is the worst deal I think I've ever seen negotiated that you started is the Iran deal. Iran is one of their biggest trading partners. Iran has power over North Korea. And when they made that horrible deal with Iran, they should have included the fact that they do something with respect to North Korea. And they should have done something with respect to Yemen and all these other places. And when asked to Secretary Kerry, why didn't you do that? Why didn't you add other things into the deal? One of the great giveaways of all time, of all time, including $400 million in cash. Nobody's ever seen that before. That turned out to be wrong. It was actually $1.7 billion in cash, obviously, I guess for the hostages. It certainly looks that way. So you say to yourself, why didn't they make the right deal? This is one of the worst deals ever made by any country in history. The deal with Iran will lead to nuclear problems. All they have to do is sit back 10 years, and they don't have to do much. HOLT:  Your two minutes is expired. TRUMP:  And they're going to end up getting nuclear. I met with Bibi Netanyahu the other day. Believe me, he's not a happy camper. HOLT:  All right. Mrs. Clinton, Secretary Clinton, you have two minutes. CLINTON:  Well, let me—let me start by saying, words matter. Words matter when you run for president. And they really matter when you are president. And I want to reassure our allies in Japan and South Korea and elsewhere that we have mutual defense treaties and we will honor them. It is essential that America's word be good. And so I know that this campaign has caused some questioning and worries on the part of many leaders across the globe. I've talked with a number of them. But I want to—on behalf of myself, and I think on behalf of a majority of the American people, say that, you know, our word is good. It's also important that we look at the entire global situation. There's no doubt that we have other problems with Iran. But personally, I'd rather deal with the other problems having put that lid on their nuclear program than still to be facing that. And Donald never tells you what he would do. Would he have started a war? Would he have bombed Iran? If he's going to criticize a deal that has been very successful in giving us access to Iranian facilities that we never had before, then he should tell us what his alternative would be. But it's like his plan to defeat ISIS. He says it's a secret plan, but the only secret is that he has no plan. So we need to be more precise in how we talk about these issues. People around the word follow our presidential campaigns so closely, trying to get hints about what we will do. Can they rely on us? Are we going to lead the world with strength and in accordance with our values? That's what I intend to do. I intend to be a leader of our country that people can count on, both here at home and around the world, to make decisions that will further peace and prosperity, but also stand up to bullies, whether they're abroad or at home. We cannot let those who would try to destabilize the world to interfere with American interests and security... HOLT:  Your two minutes is... CLINTON:  ... to be given any opportunities at all. HOLT:  ... is expired. TRUMP:  Lester, one thing I'd like to say. HOLT:  Very quickly. Twenty seconds. TRUMP:  I will go very quickly. But I will tell you that Hillary will tell you to go to her website and read all about how to defeat ISIS, which she could have defeated by never having it, you know, get going in the first place. Right now, it's getting tougher and tougher to defeat them, because they're in more and more places, more and more states, more and more nations. HOLT:  Mr. Trump... TRUMP:  And it's a big problem. And as far as Japan is concerned, I want to help all of our allies, but we are losing billions and billions of dollars. We cannot be the policemen of the world. We cannot protect countries all over the world... HOLT:  We have just... TRUMP:  ... where they're not paying us what we need. HOLT:  We have just a few final questions... TRUMP:  And she doesn't say that, because she's got no business ability. We need heart. We need a lot of things. But you have to have some basic ability. And sadly, she doesn't have that. All of the things that she's talking about could have been taken care of during the last 10 years, let's say, while she had great power. But they weren't taken care of. And if she ever wins this race, they won't be taken care of. HOLT:  Mr. Trump, this year Secretary Clinton became the first woman nominated for president by a major party. Earlier this month, you said she doesn't have, quote, "a presidential look." She's standing here right now. What did you mean by that? TRUMP:  She doesn't have the look. She doesn't have the stamina. I said she doesn't have the stamina. And I don't believe she does have the stamina. To be president of this country, you need tremendous stamina. HOLT:  The quote was, "I just don't think she has the presidential look." TRUMP:  You have—wait a minute. Wait a minute, Lester. You asked me a question. Did you ask me a question? You have to be able to negotiate our trade deals. You have to be able to negotiate, that's right, with Japan, with Saudi Arabia. I mean, can you imagine, we're defending Saudi Arabia? And with all of the money they have, we're defending them, and they're not paying? All you have to do is speak to them. Wait. You have so many different things you have to be able to do, and I don't believe that Hillary has the stamina. HOLT:  Let's let her respond. CLINTON:  Well, as soon as he travels to 112 countries and negotiates a peace deal, a cease-fire, a release of dissidents, an opening of new opportunities in nations around the world, or even spends 11 hours testifying in front of a congressional committee, he can talk to me about stamina. [ applause ] TRUMP:  The world—let me tell you. Let me tell you. Hillary has experience, but it's bad experience. We have made so many bad deals during the last—so she's got experience, that I agree. [ applause ] But it's bad, bad experience. Whether it's the Iran deal that you're so in love with, where we gave them $150 billion back, whether it's the Iran deal, whether it's anything you can—name—you almost can't name a good deal. I agree. She's got experience, but it's bad experience. And this country can't afford to have another four years of that kind of experience. HOLT:  We are at—we are at the final question. [ applause ] CLINTON:  Well, one thing. One thing, Lester. HOLT:  Very quickly, because we're at the final question now. CLINTON:  You know, he tried to switch from looks to stamina. But this is a man who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs, and someone who has said pregnancy is an inconvenience to employers, who has said... TRUMP:  I never said that. CLINTON:  .... women don't deserve equal pay unless they do as good a job as men. TRUMP:  I didn't say that. CLINTON:  And one of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest. He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them. And he called this woman "Miss Piggy." Then he called her "Miss Housekeeping," because she was Latina. Donald, she has a name. TRUMP:  Where did you find this? Where did you find this? CLINTON:  Her name is Alicia Machado. TRUMP:  Where did you find this? CLINTON:  And she has become a U.S. citizen, and you can bet... TRUMP:  Oh, really? CLINTON:  ... she's going to vote this November. TRUMP:  OK, good. Let me just tell you... [ applause ] HOLT:  Mr. Trump, could we just take 10 seconds and then we ask the final question... TRUMP:  You know, Hillary is hitting me with tremendous commercials. Some of it's said in entertainment. Some of it's said—somebody who's been very vicious to me, Rosie O'Donnell, I said very tough things to her, and I think everybody would agree that she deserves it and nobody feels sorry for her. But you want to know the truth? I was going to say something... HOLT:  Please very quickly. TRUMP:  ... extremely rough to Hillary, to her family, and I said to myself, "I can't do it. I just can't do it. It's inappropriate. It's not nice." But she spent hundreds of millions of dollars on negative ads on me, many of which are absolutely untrue. They're untrue. And they're misrepresentations. And I will tell you this, Lester: It's not nice. And I don't deserve that. But it's certainly not a nice thing that she's done. It's hundreds of millions of ads. And the only gratifying thing is, I saw the polls come in today, and with all of that money... HOLT:  We have to move on to the final question. TRUMP:  ... $200 million is spent, and I'm either winning or tied, and I've spent practically nothing. [ applause ] HOLT:  One of you will not win this election. So my final question to you tonight, are you willing to accept the outcome as the will of the voters? Secretary Clinton? CLINTON:  Well, I support our democracy. And sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But I certainly will support the outcome of this election. And I know Donald's trying very hard to plant doubts about it, but I hope the people out there understand: This election's really up to you. It's not about us so much as it is about you and your families and the kind of country and future you want. So I sure hope you will get out and vote as though your future depended on it, because I think it does. HOLT:  Mr. Trump, very quickly, same question. Will you accept the outcome as the will of the voters? TRUMP:  I want to make America great again. We are a nation that is seriously troubled. We're losing our jobs. People are pouring into our country. The other day, we were deporting 800 people. And perhaps they passed the wrong button, they pressed the wrong button, or perhaps worse than that, it was corruption, but these people that we were going to deport for good reason ended up becoming citizens. Ended up becoming citizens. And it was 800. And now it turns out it might be 1,800, and they don't even know. HOLT:  Will you accept the outcome of the election? TRUMP:  Look, here's the story. I want to make America great again. I'm going to be able to do it. I don't believe Hillary will. The answer is, if she wins, I will absolutely support her. [ applause ] HOLT:  All right. Well, that is going to do it for us. That concludes our debate for this evening, a spirit one. We covered a lot of ground, not everything as I suspected we would. The next presidential debates are scheduled for October 9th at Washington University in St. Louis and October 19th at the University of Nevada Las Vegas. The conversation will continue. A reminder. The vice presidential debate is scheduled for October 4th at Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia. My thanks to Hillary Clinton and to Donald Trump and to Hofstra University for hosting us tonight. Good night, everyone. Source: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/presidential-debate-hofstra-university-hempstead-new-york-0

Martin Luther King Jr. I Have A Dream Speech I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation. Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.         But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we've come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.         In a sense we've come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the                         Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the "unalienable Rights" of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of         Happiness." It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked "insufficient funds."         But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. And so, we've come to cash this check, a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.         We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children. It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual.                         And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.         But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.         The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by signs stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."                          I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow jail cells. And some of you have come from areas where your quest -- quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive. Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to South Carolina, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends. And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.                          I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!                  I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of "interposition" and "nullification" -- one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today!                          I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; "and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together." This is our hope, and this is the faith that I go back to the South with. With this faith, we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith, we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith, we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day. And this will be the day this will be the day when all of God's children will be able to                 sing with new meaning: My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride, From every mountainside, let freedom ring!                          And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania. Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado. Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California. But not only that: Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.                          Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee. Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.                                  From every mountainside, let freedom ring. And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:                                                            Free at last! Free at last!                                                   Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! Source: https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm

President Ronald Reagan Berlin, Germany June 12, 1987 Chancellor Kohl, Governing Mayor Diepgen, ladies and gentlemen: Twenty-four years ago, President John F. Kennedy visited Berlin, speaking to the people of this city and the world at the City Hall. Well, since then two other presidents have come, each in his turn, to Berlin. And today I, myself, make my second visit to your city. We come to Berlin, we American presidents, because it's our duty to speak, in this place, of freedom. But I must confess, we're drawn here by other things as well: by the feeling of history in this city, more than 500 years older than our own nation; by the beauty of the Grunewald and the Tiergarten; most of all, by your courage and determination. Perhaps the composer Paul Lincke understood something about American presidents. You see, like so many presidents before me, I come here today because wherever I go, whatever I do: Ich hab noch einen Koffer in Berlin. [I still have a suitcase in Berlin.] Our gathering today is being broadcast throughout Western Europe and North America. I understand that it is being seen and heard as well in the East. To those listening throughout Eastern Europe, a special word: Although I cannot be with you, I address my remarks to you just as surely as to those standing here before me. For I join you, as I join your fellow countrymen in the West, in this firm, this unalterable belief: Es gibt nur ein Berlin. [There is only one Berlin.] Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe. From the Baltic, south, those barriers cut across Germany in a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers. Farther south, there may be no visible, no obvious wall. But there remain armed guards and checkpoints all the same--still a restriction on the right to travel, still an instrument to impose upon ordinary men and women the will of a totalitarian state. Yet it is here in Berlin where the wall emerges most clearly; here, cutting across your city, where the news photo and the television screen have imprinted this brutal division of a continent upon the mind of the world. Standing before the Brandenburg Gate, every man is a German, separated from his fellow men. Every man is a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar. President von Weizsacker has said, "The German question is open as long as the Brandenburg Gate is closed." Today I say: As long as the gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind. Yet I do not come here to lament. For I find in Berlin a message of hope, even in the shadow of this wall, a message of triumph. In this season of spring in 1945, the people of Berlin emerged from their air-raid shelters to find devastation. Thousands of miles away, the people of the United States reached out to help. And in 1947 Secretary of State--as you've been told--George Marshall announced the creation of what would become known as the Marshall Plan. Speaking precisely 40 years ago this month, he said: "Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos." In the Reichstag a few moments ago, I saw a display commemorating this 40th anniversary of the Marshall Plan. I was struck by the sign on a burnt-out, gutted structure that was being rebuilt. I understand that Berliners of my own generation can remember seeing signs like it dotted throughout the western sectors of the city. The sign read simply: "The Marshall Plan is helping here to strengthen the free world." A strong, free world in the West, that dream became real. Japan rose from ruin to become an economic giant. Italy, France, Belgium--virtually every nation in Western Europe saw political and economic rebirth; the European Community was founded. In West Germany and here in Berlin, there took place an economic miracle, the Wirtschaftswunder. Adenauer, Erhard, Reuter, and other leaders understood the practical importance of liberty--that just as truth can flourish only when the journalist is given freedom of speech, so prosperity can come about only when the farmer and businessman enjoy economic freedom. The German leaders reduced tariffs, expanded free trade, lowered taxes. From 1950 to 1960 alone, the standard of living in West Germany and Berlin doubled. Where four decades ago there was rubble, today in West Berlin there is the greatest industrial output of any city in Germany--busy office blocks, fine homes and apartments, proud avenues, and the spreading lawns of parkland. Where a city's culture seemed to have been destroyed, today there are two great universities, orchestras and an opera, countless theaters, and museums. Where there was want, today there's abundance--food, clothing, automobiles--the wonderful goods of the Ku'damm. From devastation, from utter ruin, you Berliners have, in freedom, rebuilt a city that once again ranks as one of the greatest on earth. The Soviets may have had other plans. But my friends, there were a few things the Soviets didn't count on--Berliner Herz, Berliner Humor, ja, und Berliner Schnauze. [Berliner heart, Berliner humor, yes, and a Berliner Schnauze.] In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: "We will bury you." But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind--too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor. And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control. Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! I understand the fear of war and the pain of division that afflict this continent-- and I pledge to you my country's efforts to help overcome these burdens. To be sure, we in the West must resist Soviet expansion. So we must maintain defenses of unassailable strength. Yet we seek peace; so we must strive to reduce arms on both sides. Beginning 10 years ago, the Soviets challenged the Western alliance with a grave new threat, hundreds of new and more deadly SS-20 nuclear missiles, capable of striking every capital in Europe. The Western alliance responded by committing itself to a counter-deployment unless the Soviets agreed to negotiate a better solution; namely, the elimination of such weapons on both sides. For many months, the Soviets refused to bargain in earnestness. As the alliance, in turn, prepared to go forward with its counter-deployment, there were difficult days--days of protests like those during my 1982 visit to this city--and the Soviets later walked away from the table. But through it all, the alliance held firm. And I invite those who protested then-- I invite those who protest today--to mark this fact: Because we remained strong, the Soviets came back to the table. And because we remained strong, today we have within reach the possibility, not merely of limiting the growth of arms, but of eliminating, for the first time, an entire class of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth. As I speak, NATO ministers are meeting in Iceland to review the progress of our proposals for eliminating these weapons. At the talks in Geneva, we have also proposed deep cuts in strategic offensive weapons. And the Western allies have likewise made far-reaching proposals to reduce the danger of conventional war and to place a total ban on chemical weapons. While we pursue these arms reductions, I pledge to you that we will maintain the capacity to deter Soviet aggression at any level at which it might occur. And in cooperation with many of our allies, the United States is pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative--research to base deterrence not on the threat of offensive retaliation, but on defenses that truly defend; on systems, in short, that will not target populations, but shield them. By these means we seek to increase the safety of Europe and all the world. But we must remember a crucial fact: East and West do not mistrust each other because we are armed; we are armed because we mistrust each other. And our differences are not about weapons but about liberty. When President Kennedy spoke at the City Hall those 24 years ago, freedom was encircled, Berlin was under siege. And today, despite all the pressures upon this city, Berlin stands secure in its liberty. And freedom itself is transforming the globe. In the Philippines, in South and Central America, democracy has been given a rebirth. Throughout the Pacific, free markets are working miracle after miracle of economic growth. In the industrialized nations, a technological revolution is taking place--a revolution marked by rapid, dramatic advances in computers and telecommunications. In Europe, only one nation and those it controls refuse to join the community of freedom. Yet in this age of redoubled economic growth, of information and innovation, the Soviet Union faces a choice: It must make fundamental changes, or it will become obsolete. Today thus represents a moment of hope. We in the West stand ready to cooperate with the East to promote true openness, to break down barriers that separate people, to create a safe, freer world. And surely there is no better place than Berlin, the meeting place of East and West, to make a start. Free people of Berlin: Today, as in the past, the United States stands for the strict observance and full implementation of all parts of the Four Power Agreement of 1971. Let us use this occasion, the 750th anniversary of this city, to usher in a new era, to seek a still fuller, richer life for the Berlin of the future. Together, let us maintain and develop the ties between the Federal Republic and the Western sectors of Berlin, which is permitted by the 1971 agreement. And I invite Mr. Gorbachev: Let us work to bring the Eastern and Western parts of the city closer together, so that all the inhabitants of all Berlin can enjoy the benefits that come with life in one of the great cities of the world. To open Berlin still further to all Europe, East and West, let us expand the vital air access to this city, finding ways of making commercial air service to Berlin more convenient, more comfortable, and more economical. We look to the day when West Berlin can become one of the chief aviation hubs in all central Europe. With our French and British partners, the United States is prepared to help bring international meetings to Berlin. It would be only fitting for Berlin to serve as the site of United Nations meetings, or world conferences on human rights and arms control or other issues that call for international cooperation. There is no better way to establish hope for the future than to enlighten young minds, and we would be honored to sponsor summer youth exchanges, cultural events, and other programs for young Berliners from the East. Our French and British friends, I'm certain, will do the same. And it's my hope that an authority can be found in East Berlin to sponsor visits from young people of the Western sectors. One final proposal, one close to my heart: Sport represents a source of enjoyment and ennoblement, and you may have noted that the Republic of Korea--South Korea--has offered to permit certain events of the 1988 Olympics to take place in the North. International sports competitions of all kinds could take place in both parts of this city. And what better way to demonstrate to the world the openness of this city than to offer in some future year to hold the Olympic games here in Berlin, East and West? In these four decades, as I have said, you Berliners have built a great city. You've done so in spite of threats--the Soviet attempts to impose the East-mark, the blockade. Today the city thrives in spite of the challenges implicit in the very presence of this wall. What keeps you here? Certainly there's a great deal to be said for your fortitude, for your defiant courage. But I believe there's something deeper, something that involves Berlin's whole look and feel and way of life--not mere sentiment. No one could live long in Berlin without being completely disabused of illusions. Something instead, that has seen the difficulties of life in Berlin but chose to accept them, that continues to build this good and proud city in contrast to a surrounding totalitarian presence that refuses to release human energies or aspirations. Something that speaks with a powerful voice of affirmation, that says yes to this city, yes to the future, yes to freedom. In a word, I would submit that what keeps you in Berlin is love--love both profound and abiding. Perhaps this gets to the root of the matter, to the most fundamental distinction of all between East and West. The totalitarian world produces backwardness because it does such violence to the spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, to worship. The totalitarian world finds even symbols of love and of worship an affront. Years ago, before the East Germans began rebuilding their churches, they erected a secular structure: the television tower at Alexander Platz. Virtually ever since, the authorities have been working to correct what they view as the tower's one major flaw, treating the glass sphere at the top with paints and chemicals of every kind. Yet even today when the sun strikes that sphere--that sphere that towers over all Berlin--the light makes the sign of the cross. There in Berlin, like the city itself, symbols of love, symbols of worship, cannot be suppressed. As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner: "This wall will fall. Beliefs become reality." Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom. And I would like, before I close, to say one word. I have read, and I have been questioned since I've been here about certain demonstrations against my coming. And I would like to say just one thing, and to those who demonstrate so. I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they're doing again. Thank you and God bless you all. President Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987 Source: https://www.historyplace.com/speeches/reagan-tear-down.htm

Reagan’s 1982 State of the Union Address January 26, 1982 Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Congress, honored guests, and fellow citizens: Today marks my first State of the Union address to you, a constitutional duty as old as our Republic itself. President Washington began this tradition in 1790 after reminding the Nation that the destiny of self-government and the "preservation of the sacred fire of liberty" is "finally staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people." For our friends in the press, who place a high premium on accuracy, let me say: I did not actually hear George Washington say that. [Laughter] But it is a matter of historic record. [Laughter] But from this podium, Winston Churchill asked the free world to stand together against the onslaught of aggression. Franklin Delano Roosevelt spoke of a day of infamy and summoned a nation to arms. Douglas MacArthur made an unforgettable farewell to a country he loved and served so well. Dwight Eisenhower reminded us that peace was purchased only at the price of strength. And John F. Kennedy spoke of the burden and glory that is freedom. When I visited this Chamber last year as a newcomer to Washington, critical of past policies which I believed had failed, I proposed a new spirit of partnership between this Congress and this administration and between Washington and our State and local governments. In forging this new partnership for America, we could achieve the oldest hopes of our Republic—prosperity for our nation, peace for the world, and the blessings of individual liberty for our children and, someday, for all of humanity. It's my duty to report to you tonight on the progress that we have made in our relations with other nations, on the foundation we've carefully laid for our economic recovery, and finally, on a bold and spirited initiative that I believe can change the face of American government and make it again the servant of the people. Seldom have the stakes been higher for America. What we do and say here will make all the difference to autoworkers in Detroit, lumberjacks in the Northwest, steelworkers in Steubenville who are in the unemployment lines; to black teenagers in Newark and Chicago; to hard-pressed farmers and small businessmen; and to millions of everyday Americans who harbor the simple wish of a safe and financially secure future for their children. To understand the state of the Union, we must look not only at where we are and where we're going but where we've been. The situation at this time last year was truly ominous. The last decade has seen a series of recessions. There was a recession in 1970, in 1974, and again in the spring of 1980. Each time, unemployment increased and inflation soon turned up again. We coined the word "stagflation" to describe this. Government's response to these recessions was to pump up the money supply and increase spending. In the last 6 months of 1980, as an example, the money supply increased at the fastest rate in postwar history—13 percent. Inflation remained in double digits, and government spending increased at an annual rate of 17 percent. Interest rates reached a staggering 21.5 percent. There were 8 million unemployed. Late in 1981 we sank into the present recession, largely because continued high interest rates hurt the auto industry and construction. And there was a drop in productivity, and the already high unemployment increased. This time, however, things are different. We have an economic program in place, completely different from the artificial quick fixes of the past. It calls for a reduction of the rate of increase in government spending, and already that rate has been cut nearly in half. But reduced spending the first and smallest phase of a 3-year tax rate reduction designed to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Already interest rates are down to 15 3/4 percent, but they must still go lower. Inflation is down from 12.4 percent to 8.9, and for the month of December it was running at an annualized rate of 5.2 percent. If we had not acted as we did, things would be far worse for all Americans than they are today. Inflation, taxes, and interest rates would all be higher. A year ago, Americans' faith in their governmental process was steadily declining. Six out of 10 Americans were saying they were pessimistic about their future. A new kind of defeatism was heard. Some said our domestic problems were uncontrollable, that we had to learn to live with this seemingly endless cycle of high inflation and high unemployment. There were also pessimistic predictions about the relationship between our administration and this Congress. It was said we could never work together. Well, those predictions were wrong. The record is clear, and I believe that history will remember this as an era of American renewal, remember this administration as an administration of change, and remember this Congress as a Congress of destiny. Together, we not only cut the increase in government spending nearly in half, we brought about the largest tax reductions and the most sweeping changes in our tax structure since the beginning of this century. And because we indexed future taxes to the rate of inflation, we took away government's built-in profit on inflation and its hidden incentive to grow larger at the expense of American workers.- Together, after 50 years of taking power away from the hands of the people in their States and local communities, we have started returning power and resources to them. Together, we have cut the growth of new Federal regulations nearly in half. In 1981 there were 23,000 fewer pages in the Federal Register, which lists new regulations, than there were in 1980. By deregulating oil we've come closer to achieving energy independence and helped bring down the cost of gasoline and heating fuel. Together, we have created an effective Federal strike force to combat waste and fraud in government. In just 6 months it has saved the taxpayers more than $2 billion, and it's only getting started. Together we've begun to mobilize the private sector, not to duplicate wasteful and discredited government programs, but to bring thousands of Americans into a volunteer effort to help solve many of America's social problems. Together we've begun to restore that margin of military safety that ensures peace. Our country's uniform is being worn once again with pride. Together we have made a New Beginning, but we have only begun. No one pretends that the way ahead will be easy. In my Inaugural Address last year, I warned that the "ills we suffer have come upon us over several decades. They will not go away in days, weeks, or months, but they will go away . . . because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we've had it in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom." ' The economy will face difficult moments in the months ahead. But the program for economic recovery that is in place will pull the economy out of its slump and put us on the road to prosperity and stable growth by the latter half of this year. And that is why I can report to you tonight that in the near future the state of the Union and the economy will be better—much better—if we summon the strength to continue on the course that we've charted. And so, the question: If the fundamentals are in place, what now? Well, two things. First, we must understand what's happening at the moment to the economy. Our current problems are not the product of the recovery program that's only just now getting underway, as some would have you believe; they are the inheritance of decades of tax and tax and spend and spend. Second, because our economic problems are deeply rooted and will not respond to quick political fixes, we must stick to our carefully integrated plan for recovery. That plan is based on four commonsense fundamentals: continued reduction of the growth in Federal spending; preserving the individual and business tax reductions that will stimulate saving and investment; removing unnecessary Federal regulations to spark productivity; and maintaining a healthy dollar and a stable monetary policy, the latter a responsibility of the Federal Reserve System. The only alternative being offered to this economic program is a return to the policies that gave us a trillion-dollar debt, runaway inflation, runaway interest rates and unemployment. The doubters would have us turn back the clock with tax increases that would offset the personal tax rate reductions already passed by this Congress. Raise present taxes to cut future deficits, they tell us. Well, I don't believe we should buy that argument. There are too many imponderables for anyone to predict deficits or surpluses several years ahead with any degree of accuracy. The budget in place, when I took office, had been projected as balanced. It turned out to have one of the biggest deficits in history. Another example of the imponderables that can make deficit projections highly questionable—a change of only one percentage point in unemployment can alter a deficit up or down by some $25 billion. As it now stands, our forecast, which we're required by law to make, will show major deficits starting at less than a hundred billion dollars and declining, but still too high. More important, we're making progress with the three keys to reducing deficits: economic growth, lower interest rates, and spending control. The policies we have in place will reduce the deficit steadily, surely, and in time, completely. Higher taxes would not mean lower deficits. If they did, how would we explain that tax revenues more than doubled just since 1976; yet in that same 6-year period we ran the largest series of deficits in our history. In 1980 tax revenues increased by $54 billion, and in 1980 we had one of our all-time biggest deficits. Raising taxes won't balance the budget; it will encourage more government spending and less private investment. Raising taxes will slow economic growth, reduce production, and destroy future jobs, making it more difficult for those without jobs to find them and more likely that those who now have jobs could lose them. So, I will not ask you to try to balance the budget on the backs of the American taxpayers. I will seek no tax increases this year, and I have no intention of retreating from our basic program of tax relief. I promise to bring the American people—to bring their tax rates down and to keep them down, to provide them incentives to rebuild our economy, to save, to invest in America's future. I will stand by my word. Tonight I'm urging the American people: Seize these new opportunities to produce, to save, to invest, and together we'll make this economy a mighty engine of freedom, hope, and prosperity again. Now, the budget deficit this year will exceed our earlier expectations. The recession did that. It lowered revenues and increased costs. To some extent, we're also victims of our own success. We've brought inflation down faster than we thought we could, and in doing this, we've deprived government of those hidden revenues that occur when inflation pushes people into higher income tax brackets. And the continued high interest rates last year cost the government about $5 billion more than anticipated. We must cut out more nonessential government spending and rout out more waste, and we will continue our efforts to reduce the number of employees in the Federal work force by 75,000. The budget plan I submit to you on February 8th will realize major savings by dismantling the Departments of Energy and Education and by eliminating ineffective subsidies for business. We'll continue to redirect our resources to our two highest budget priorities—a strong national defense to keep America free and at peace and a reliable safety net of social programs for those who have contributed and those who are in need. Contrary to some of the wild charges you may have heard, this administration has not and will not turn its back on America's elderly or America's poor. Under the new budget, funding for social insurance programs will be more than double the amount spent only 6 years ago. But it would be foolish to pretend that these or any programs cannot be made more efficient and economical. The entitlement programs that make up our safety net for the truly needy have worthy goals and many deserving recipients. We will protect them. But there's only one way to see to it that these programs really help those whom they were designed to help. And that is to bring their spiraling costs under control. Today we face the absurd situation of a Federal budget with three-quarters of its expenditures routinely referred to as "uncontrollable." And a large part of this goes to entitlement programs. Committee after committee of this Congress has heard witness after witness describe many of these programs as poorly administered and rife with waste and fraud. Virtually every American who shops in a local supermarket is aware of the daily abuses that take place in the food stamp program, which has grown by 16,000 percent in the last 15 years. Another example is Medicare and Medicaid—programs with worthy goals but whose costs have increased from 11.2 billion to almost 60 billion, more than 5 times as much, in just 10 years. Waste and fraud are serious problems. Back in 1980 Federal investigators testified before one of your committees that "corruption has permeated virtually every area of the Medicare and Medicaid health care industry." One official said many of the people who are cheating the system were "very confident that nothing was going to happen to them." Well, something is going to happen. Not only the taxpayers are defrauded; the people with real dependency on these programs are deprived of what they need, because available resources are going not to the needy, but to the greedy. The time has come to control the uncontrollable. In August we made a start. I signed a bill to reduce the growth of these programs by $44 billion over the next 3 years while at the same time preserving essential services for the truly needy. Shortly you will receive from me a message on further reforms we intend to install—some new, but others long recommended by your own congressional committees. I ask you to help make these savings for the American taxpayer. The savings we propose in entitlement programs will total some $63 billion over 4 Years and will, without affecting social t security, go a long way toward bringing Federal spending under control. But don't be fooled by those who proclaim that spending cuts will deprive the elderly, the needy, and the helpless. The. Federal Government will still subsidize 95 million meals every day. That's one out of seven of all the meals served in America. Head Start, senior nutrition programs, and child welfare programs will not be cut from the levels we proposed last year. More than one-half billion dollars has been proposed for minority business assistance. And research at the National Institute of Health will be increased by over $100 million. While meeting all these needs, we intend to plug unwarranted tax loopholes and strengthen the law which requires all large corporations to pay a minimum tax. I am confident the economic program we've put into operation will protect the needy while it triggers a recovery that will benefit all Americans. It will stimulate the economy, result in increased savings and provide capital for expansion, mortgages for homebuilding, and jobs for the unemployed. Now that the essentials of that program are in place, our next major undertaking must be a program—just as bold, just as innovative—to make government again accountable to the people, to make our system of federalism work again. Our citizens feel they've lost control of even the most basic decisions made about the essential services of government, such as schools, welfare, roads, and even garbage collection. And they're right. A maze of interlocking jurisdictions and levels of government confronts average citizens in trying to solve even the simplest of problems. They don't know where to turn for answers, who to hold accountable, who to praise, who to blame, who to vote for or against. The main reason for this is the overpowering growth of Federal grants-in-aid programs during the past few decades. In 1960 the Federal Government had 132 categorical grant programs, costing $7 billion. When I took office, there were approximately 500, costing nearly a hundred billion dollars—13 programs for energy, 36 for pollution control, 66 for social services, 90 for education. And here in the Congress, it takes at least 166 committees just to try to keep track of them. You know and I know that neither the President nor the Congress can properly oversee this jungle of grants-in-aid; indeed, the growth of these grants has led to the distortion in the vital functions of government. As one Democratic Governor put it recently: The National Government should be worrying about "arms control, not potholes." The growth in these Federal programs has—in the words of one intergovernmental commission—made the Federal Government "more pervasive, more intrusive, more unmanageable, more ineffective and costly, and above all, more [un] accountable." Let's solve this problem with a single, bold stroke: the return of some $47 billion in Federal programs to State and local government, together with the means to finance them and a transition period of nearly 10 years to avoid unnecessary disruption. I will shortly send this Congress a message describing this program. I want to emphasize, however, that its full details will have been worked out only after close consultation with congressional, State, and local officials. Starting in fiscal 1984, the Federal Government will assume full responsibility for the cost of the rapidly growing Medicaid program to go along with its existing responsibility for Medicare. As part of a financially equal swap, the States will simultaneously take full responsibility for Aid to Families with Dependent Children and food stamps. This will make welfare less costly and more responsive to genuine need, because it'll be designed and administered closer to the grass roots and the people it serves. In 1984 the Federal Government will apply the full proceeds from certain excise taxes to a grass roots trust fund that will belong in fair shares to the 50 States. The total amount flowing into this fund will be $28 billion a year. Over the next 4 years the States can use this money in either of two ways. If they want to continue receiving Federal grants in such areas as transportation, education, and social services, they can use their trust fund money to pay for the grants. Or to the extent they choose to forgo the Federal grant programs, they can use their trust fund money on their own for those or other purposes. There will be a mandatory pass-through of part of these funds to local governments. By 1988 the States will be in complete control of over 40 Federal grant programs. The trust fund will start to phase out, eventually to disappear, and the excise taxes will be turned over to the States. They can then preserve, lower, or raise taxes on their own and fund and manage these programs as they see fit. In a single stroke we will be accomplishing a realignment that will end cumbersome administration and spiraling costs at the Federal level while we ensure these programs will be more responsive to both the people they're meant to help and the people who pay for them. Hand in hand with this program to strengthen the discretion and flexibility of State and local governments, we're proposing legislation for an experimental effort to improve and develop our depressed urban areas in the 1980's and '90's. This legislation will permit States and localities to apply to the Federal Government for designation as urban enterprise zones. A broad range of special economic incentives in the zones will help attract new business, new jobs, new opportunity to America's inner cities and rural towns. Some will say our mission is to save free enterprise. Well, I say we must free enterprise so that together we can save America. Some will also say our States and local communities are not up to the challenge of a new and creative partnership. Well, that might have been true 20 years ago before reforms like reapportionment and the Voting Rights Act, the 10-year extension of which I strongly support. It's no longer true today. This administration has faith in State and local governments and the constitutional balance envisioned by the Founding Fathers. We also believe in the integrity, decency, and sound, good sense of grass roots Americans. Our faith in the American people is reflected in another major endeavor. Our private sector initiatives task force is seeking out successful community models of school, church, business, union, foundation, and civic programs that help community needs. Such groups are almost invariably far more efficient than government in running social programs. We're not asking them to replace discarded and often discredited government programs dollar for dollar, service for service. We just want to help them perform the good works they choose and help others to profit by their example. Three hundred and eighty-five thousand corporations and private organizations are already working on social programs ranging from drug rehabilitation to job training, and thousands more Americans have written us asking how they can help. The volunteer spirit is still alive and well in America. Our nation's long journey towards civil rights for all our citizens—once a source of discord, now a source of pride—must continue with no backsliding or slowing down. We must and shall see that those basic laws that guarantee equal rights are preserved and, when necessary, strengthened. Our concern for equal rights for women is firm and unshakable. We launched a new Task Force on Legal Equity for Women and a Fifty States Project that will examine State laws for discriminatory language. And for the first time in our history, a woman sits on the highest court in the land. So, too, the problem of crime—one as real and deadly serious as any in America today. It demands that we seek transformation of our legal system, which overly protects the rights of criminals while it leaves society and the innocent victims of crime without justice. We look forward to the enactment of a responsible clean air act to increase jobs while continuing to improve the quality of our air. We're encouraged by the bipartisan initiative of the House and are hopeful of further progress as the Senate continues its deliberations. So far, I've concentrated largely, now, on domestic matters. To view the state of the Union in perspective, we must not ignore the rest of the world. There isn't time tonight for a lengthy treatment of social—or foreign policy, I should say, a subject I intend to address in detail in the near future. A few words, however, are in order on the progress we've made over the past year, reestablishing respect for our nation around the globe and some of the challenges and goals that we will approach in the year ahead. At Ottawa and Cancun, I met with leaders of the major industrial powers and developing nations. Now, some of those I met with were a little surprised that I didn't apologize for America's wealth. Instead, I spoke of the strength of the free marketplace system and how that system could help them realize their aspirations for economic development and political freedom. I believe lasting friendships were made, and the foundation was laid for future cooperation. In the vital region of the Caribbean Basin, we're developing a program of aid, trade, and investment incentives to promote self-sustaining growth and a better, more secure life for our neighbors to the south. Toward those who would export terrorism and subversion in the Caribbean and elsewhere, especially Cuba and Libya, we will act with firmness. Our foreign policy is a policy of strength, fairness, and balance. By restoring America's military credibility, by pursuing peace at the negotiating table wherever both sides are willing to sit down in good faith, and by regaining the respect of America's allies and adversaries alike, we have strengthened our country's position as a force for peace and progress in the world. When action is called for, we're taking it. Our sanctions against the military dictatorship that has attempted to crush human rights in Poland—and against the Soviet regime behind that military dictatorship-clearly demonstrated to the world that America will not conduct "business as usual" with the forces of oppression. If the events in Poland continue to deteriorate, further measures will follow. Now, let me also note that private American groups have taken the lead in making January 30th a day of solidarity with the people of Poland. So, too, the European Parliament has called for March 21st to be an international day of support for Afghanistan. Well, I urge all peace-loving peoples to join together on those days, to raise their voices, to speak and pray for freedom. Meanwhile, we're working for reduction of arms and military activities, as I announced in my address to the Nation last November 18th. We have proposed to the Soviet Union a far-reaching agenda for mutual reduction of military forces and have already initiated negotiations with them in Geneva on intermediate-range nuclear forces. In those talks it is essential that we negotiate from a position of strength. There must be a real incentive for the Soviets to take these talks seriously. This requires that we rebuild our defenses. In the last decade, while we sought the moderation of Soviet power through a process of restraint and accommodation, the Soviets engaged in an unrelenting buildup of their military forces. The protection of our national security has required that we undertake a substantial program to enhance our military forces. We have not neglected to strengthen our traditional alliances in Europe and Asia, or to develop key relationships with our partners in the Middle East and other countries. Building a more peaceful world requires a sound strategy and the national resolve to back it up. When radical forces threaten our friends, when economic misfortune creates conditions of instability, when strategically vital parts of the world fall under the shadow of Soviet power, our response can make the difference between peaceful change or disorder and violence. That's why we've laid such stress not only on our own defense but on our vital foreign assistance program. Your recent passage of the Foreign Assistance Act sent a signal to the world that America will not shrink from making the investments necessary for both peace and security. Our foreign policy must be rooted in realism, not naivete or self-delusion. A recognition of what the Soviet empire is about is the starting point. Winston Churchill, in negotiating with the Soviets, observed that they respect only strength and resolve in their dealings with other nations. That's why we've moved to reconstruct our national defenses. We intend to keep the peace. We will also keep our freedom. We have made pledges of a new frankness in our public statements and worldwide broadcasts. In the face of a climate of falsehood and misinformation, we've promised the world a season of truth—the truth of our great civilized ideas: individual liberty, representative government, the rule of law under God. We've never needed walls or minefields or barbed wire to keep our people in. Nor do we declare martial law to keep our people from voting for the kind of government they want. Yes, we have our problems; yes, we're in a time of recession. And it's true, there's no quick fix, as I said, to instantly end the tragic pain of unemployment. But we will end it. The process has already begun, and we'll see its effect as the year goes on. We speak with pride and admiration of that little band of Americans who overcame insuperable odds to set this nation on course 200 years ago. But our glory didn't end with them. Americans ever since have emulated their deeds. We don't have to turn to our history books for heroes. They're all around us. One who sits among you here tonight epitomized that heroism at the end of the longest imprisonment ever inflicted on men of our Armed Forces. Who will ever forget that night when we waited for television to bring us the scene of that first plane landing at Clark Field in the Philippines, bringing our POW's home? The plane door opened and Jeremiah Denton came slowly down the ramp. He caught sight of our flag, saluted it, said, "God bless America," and then thanked us for bringing him home. Just 2 weeks ago, in the midst of a terrible tragedy on the Potomac, we saw again the spirit of American heroism at its finest—the heroism of dedicated rescue workers saving crash victims from icy waters. And we saw the heroism of one of our young government employees, Lenny Skutnik, who, when he saw a woman lose her grip on the helicopter line, dived into the water and dragged her to safety. And then there are countless, quiet, everyday heroes of American life--parents who sacrifice long and hard so their children will know a better life than they've known; church and civic volunteers who help to feed, clothe, nurse, and teach the needy; millions who've made our nation and our nation's destiny so very special-unsung heroes who may not have realized their own dreams themselves but then who reinvest those dreams in their children. Don't let anyone tell you that America's best days are behind her, that the American spirit has been vanquished. We've seen it triumph too often in our lives to stop believing in it now. A hundred and twenty years ago, the greatest of all our Presidents delivered his second State of the Union message in this Chamber. "We cannot escape history," Abraham Lincoln warned. "We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves." The "trial through which we pass will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest [last] generation." Well, that President and that Congress did not fail the American people. Together they weathered the storm and preserved the Union. Let it be said of us that we, too, did not fail; that we, too, worked together to bring America through difficult times. Let us so conduct ourselves that two centuries from now, another Congress and another President, meeting in this Chamber as we are meeting, will speak of us with pride, saying that we met the test and preserved for them in their day the sacred flame of liberty—this last, best hope of man on Earth. God bless you, and thank you. Source: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-before-joint-session-the-congress-reporting-the-state-the-union-2

October 11, 2012   MARTHA RADDATZ, MODERATOR:  Good evening, and welcome to the first and only vice presidential debate of 2012, sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. I'm Martha Raddatz of ABC News, and I am honored to moderate this debate between two men who have dedicated much of their lives to public service. Tonight's debate is divided between domestic and foreign policy issues. And I'm going to move back and forth between foreign and domestic, since that is what a vice president or president would have to do. We will have nine different segments. At the beginning of each segment, I will ask both candidates a question, and they will each have two minutes to answer. Then I will encourage a discussion between the candidates with follow-up questions. By coin toss, it has been determined that Vice President Biden will be first to answer the opening question. We have a wonderful audience here at Centre College tonight. You will no doubt hear their enthusiasm at the end of the debate — and right now, as we welcome Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan. [ applause ] OK, you got your little wave to the families in. It's great. Good evening, gentlemen. It really is an honor to be here with both of you. I would like to begin with Libya. On a rather somber note, one month ago tonight, on the anniversary of 9/11, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans were killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi. The State Department has now made clear, there were no protesters there. RADDATZ:  it was a pre-planned assault by heavily armed men. Wasn't this a massive intelligence failure, Vice President Biden? VICE PRESIDENT JOSEPH BIDEN:  What is was, it was a tragedy, Martha. It — Chris Stevens was one of our best. We lost three other brave Americans. I can make absolutely two commitments to you and all the American people tonight. One, we will find and bring to justice the men who did this. And secondly, we will get to the bottom of it, and whatever — wherever the facts lead us, wherever they lead us, we will make clear to the American public, because whatever mistakes were made will not be made again. When you're looking at a president, Martha, it seems to me that you should take a look at his most important responsibility. That's caring for the national security of the country. And the best way to do that is take a look at how he's handled the issues of the day. On Iraq, the president said he would end the war. Governor Romney said that was a tragic mistake, we should have left 30,000 — he ended it. Governor Romney said that was a tragic mistake, we should have left 30,000 troops there. With regard to Afghanistan, he said he will end the war in 2014. Governor Romney said we should not set a date, number one. And number two, with regard to 2014, it depends. When it came to Osama bin Laden, the president the first day in office, I was sitting with him in the Oval Office, he called in the CIA and signed an order saying, "My highest priority is to get bin Laden." Prior to the election, prior to the — him being sworn in, Governor Romney was asked the question about how he would proceed. He said, "I wouldn't move heaven and earth to get bin Laden." He didn't understand it was more than about taking a murderer off the battlefield. It was about restoring America's heart and letting terrorists around the world know, if you do harm to America, we will track you to the gates of hell if need be. And lastly, the president of the United States has — has led with a steady hand and clear vision. Governor Romney, the opposite. The last thing we need now is another war. RADDATZ:  Congressman Ryan? REPRESENTATIVE PAUL RYAN:  We mourn the loss of these four Americans who were murdered. RYAN:  When you take a look at what has happened just in the last few weeks, they sent the U.N. ambassador out to say that this was because of a protest and a YouTube video. It took the president two weeks to acknowledge that this was a terrorist attack. He went to the U.N. and in his speech at the U.N. he said six times — he talked about the YouTube video. Look, if we're hit by terrorists we're going to call it for what it is, a terrorist attack. Our ambassador in Paris has a Marine detachment guarding him. Shouldn't we have a Marine detachment guarding our ambassador in Benghazi, a place where we knew that there was an Al Qaida cell with arms? This is becoming more troubling by the day. They first blamed the YouTube video. Now they're trying to blame the Romney-Ryan ticket for making this an issue. With respect to Iraq, we had the same position before the withdrawal, which was we agreed with the Obama administration. Let's have a status of forces agreement to make sure that we secure our gains. The vice president was put in charge of those negotiations by President Obama and they failed to get the agreement. We don't have a status of forces agreement because they failed to get one. That's what we are talking about. Now, when it comes to our veterans, we owe them a great debt of gratitude for what they've done for us, including your son Beau. But we also want to make sure that we don't lose the things we fought so hard to get. Now, with respect to Afghanistan, the 2014 deadline, we agree with a 2014 transition. But what we also want it do is make sure that we're not projecting weakness abroad, and that's what's happening here. RYAN:  This Benghazi issue would be a tragedy in and of itself, but unfortunately it's indicative of a broader problem. And that is what we are watching on our TV screens is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy, which is making the [ inaudible ] more chaotic us less safe. RADDATZ:  I just want to you about right in the middle of the crisis. Governor Romney, and you're talking about this again tonight, talked about the weakness; talked about apologies from the Obama administration. Was that really appropriate right in the middle of the crisis? RYAN:  On that same day, the Obama administration had the exact same position. Let's recall that they disavowed their own statement that they had put out earlier in the day in Cairo. So we had the same position, but we will — it's never too early to speak out for our values. We should have spoken out right away when the green revolution was up and starting; when the mullahs in Iran were attacking their people. We should not have called Bashar Assad a reformer when he was turning his Russian-provided guns on his own people. We should always stand up for peace, for democracy, for individual rights. And we should not be imposing these devastating defense cuts, because what that does when we equivocate on our values, when we show that we're cutting down on defense, it makes us more weak. It projects weakness. And when we look weak, our adversaries are much more willing to test us. They're more brazen in their attacks, and are allies are less willing to...[ crosstalk ] BIDEN:  With all due respect, that's a bunch of malarkey. RADDATZ:  And why is that so? BIDEN:  Because not a single thing he said is accurate. First of all... RADDATZ:  Be specific. BIDEN:  I will be very specific. Number one, the — this lecture on embassy security — the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for, number one. So much for the embassy security piece. Number two, Governor Romney, before he knew the facts, before he even knew that our ambassador was killed, he was out making a political statement which was panned by the media around the world. And this talk about this — this weakness. I — I don't understand what my friend's talking about here. We — this is a president who's gone out and done everything he has said he was going to do. This is a guy who's repaired our alliances so the rest of the world follows us again. This is the guy who brought the entire world, including Russia and China, to bring about the most devastating — most devastating — the most devastating efforts on Iran to make sure that they in fact stop [ inaudible ]. Look, I — I just — I mean, these guys bet against America all the time. RADDATZ:  Can we talk — let me go back to Libya. BIDEN:  Yeah, sure. RADDATZ:  What were you first told about the attack? Why — why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on [ inaudible ]? BIDEN:  Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment. That's why there's also an investigation headed by Tom Pickering, a leading diplomat from the Reagan years, who is doing an investigation as to whether or not there are any lapses, what the lapses were, so that they will never happen again. RADDATZ:  And they wanted more security there. BIDEN:  Well, we weren't told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again. And by the way, at the time we were told exactly — we said exactly what the intelligence community told us that they knew. That was the assessment. And as the intelligence community changed their view, we made it clear they changed their view. That's why I said we will get to the bottom of this. You know, usually when there's a crisis, we pull together. We pull together as a nation. But as I said, even before we knew what happened to the ambassador, the governor was holding a press conference — was holding a press conference. That's not presidential leadership. RADDATZ:  Mr. Ryan, I want to ask you about — the Romney campaign talks a lot about no apologies. He has a book called called "No Apologies." Should the U.S. have apologized for Americans burning Korans in Afghanistan? Should the U.S. apologize for U.S. Marines urinating on Taliban corpses? RYAN:  Oh, gosh, yes. Urinating on Taliban corpses? What we should not apologize for... RADDATZ:  Burning Korans, immediately? RYAN:  What — what we should not be apologizing for are standing up for our values. What we should not be doing is saying to the Egyptian people, while Mubarak is cracking down on them, that he's a good guy and, in the next week, say he ought to go. What we should not be doing is rejecting claims for — for calls for more security in our barracks, in our Marine — we need Marines in Benghazi when the commander on the ground says we need more forces for security. There were requests for extra security; those requests were not honored. Look, this was the anniversary of 9/11. It was Libya, a country we knew we had Al Qaida cells there, as we know Al Qaida and its affiliates are on the rise in Northern Africa. And we did not give our ambassador in Benghazi a Marine detachment? Of course there's an investigation, so we can make sure that this never happens again, but when it comes to speaking up for our values, we should not apologize for those. Here's the problem. Look at all the various issues out there, and it's unraveling before our eyes. The vice president talks about sanctions on Iran. They got — we've had four... RADDATZ:  Let's move to Iran. I'd actually like to move to Iran, because there's really no bigger national security... RYAN:  Absolutely. RADDATZ:  ... this country is facing. Both President Obama and Governor Romney have said they will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, even if that means military action. Last week, former Defense Secretary Bob Gates said a strike on Iran's facilities would not work and, quote, "could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations." Can the two of you be absolutely clear and specific to the American people how effective would a military strike be? Congressman Ryan? RYAN:  We cannot allow Iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability. Now, let's take a look at where we've gone — come from. When Barack Obama was elected, they had enough fissile material — nuclear material to make one bomb. Now they have enough for five. They're racing toward a nuclear weapon. They're four years closer toward a nuclear weapons capability. We've had four different sanctions, the U.N. on Iran, three from the Bush administration, one here. And the only reason we got it is because Russia watered it down and prevented the — the sanctions from hitting the central bank. Mitt Romney proposed these sanctions in 2007. In Congress, I've been fighting for these sanctions since 2009. The administration was blocking us every step of the way. Only because we had strong bipartisan support for these tough sanctions were we able to overrule their objections and put them in spite of the administration. Imagine what would have happened if we had these sanctions in place earlier. You think Iran's not brazen? Look at what they're doing. They're stepping up their terrorist attacks. They tried a terrorist attack in the United States last year when they tried to blow up the Saudi ambassador at a restaurant in Washington, D.C. And talk about credibility? When this administration says that all options are on the table, they send out senior administration officials that send all these mixed signals. And so, in order to solve this peacefully — which is everybody's goal — you have to have the ayatollahs change their minds. Look at where they are. They're moving faster toward a nuclear weapon. It's because this administration has no credibility on this issue. It's because this administration watered down sanctions, delayed sanctions, tried to stop us for putting the tough sanctions in place. Now we have them in place because of Congress. They say the military option's on the table, but it's not being viewed as credible. And the key is to do this peacefully, is to make sure that we have credibility. Under a Romney administration, we will have credibility on this issue. RADDATZ:  Vice President Biden? BIDEN:  It's incredible. Look, imagine had we let the Republican Congress work out the sanctions. You think there's any possibility the entire world would have joined us, Russia and China, all of our allies? These are the most crippling sanctions in the history of sanctions, period. Period. When Governor Romney's asked about it, he said, "We gotta keep these sanctions." When he said, "Well, you're talking about doing more," what are you — you're going to go to war? Is that what you want to do? RYAN:  We want to prevent war. BIDEN:  And the interesting thing is, how are they going to prevent war? How are they going to prevent war if they say there's nothing more that we — that they say we should do than what we've already done, number one. And number two, with regard to the ability of the United States to take action militarily, it is — it is not in my purview to talk about classified information. But we feel quite confident we could deal a serious blow to the Iranians. But number two, the Iranians are — the Israelis and the United States, our military and intelligence communities are absolutely the same exact place in terms of how close — how close the Iranians are to getting a nuclear weapon. They are a good way away. There is no difference between our view and theirs. When my friend talks about fissile material, they have to take this highly enriched uranium, get it from 20 percent up, then they have to be able to have something to put it in. There is no weapon that the Iranians have at this point. Both the Israelis and we know — we'll know if they start the process of building a weapon. So all this bluster I keep hearing, all this loose talk, what are they talking about? Are you talking about, to be more credible — what more can the president do, stand before the United Nations, tell the whole world, directly communicate to the ayatollah, we will not let them acquire a nuclear weapon, period, unless he's talking about going to war. RYAN:  Martha? Let's... RADDATZ:  Congressman Ryan? RYAN:  Let's look at this from the view of the ayatollahs. What do they see? They see this administration trying to water down sanctions in Congress for over two years. They're moving faster toward a nuclear weapon. They're spinning the centrifuges faster. They see us saying when we come into the administration, when they're sworn in, we need more space with our ally, Israel. They see President Obama in New York City the same day Bibi Netanyahu is and he, instead of meeting with him, goes on a — on a daily talk show. They see, when we say that these options are on the table, the secretary of defense walked them back. They are not changing their mind. That's what we have to do, is change their mind so they stop pursuing nuclear weapons, and they're going faster. RADDATZ:  How do you do it so quickly? Look, you — you both saw Benjamin Netanyahu hold up that picture of a bomb with a red line and talking about the red line being in spring. So can you solve this, if the Romney-Ryan ticket is elected, can you solve this in two months before spring and avoid nuclear — nuclear...[ crosstalk ] RYAN:  We can debate a time line. We can debate the time line, whether there's — it's that short a time or longer. I agree that it's probably longer. Number two, it's all about...[ crosstalk ] RADDATZ:  You don't agree with that bomb and whether the Israelis...[ crosstalk ] RYAN:  I don't want to go into classified stuff. But we both agree that to do this peacefully you've got to get them to change their minds. They're not changing their minds. And look at what this administration... RADDATZ:  But what — what do...[ crosstalk ] BIDEN:  Let me tell you what the ayatollah sees. RYAN:  You have to have credibility. BIDEN:  The ayatollah sees his economy being crippled. The ayatollah sees that there are 50 percent fewer exports of oil. He sees the currency going into the tank. He sees the economy going into freefall. And he sees the world for the first time totally united in opposition to him getting a nuclear weapon. Now, with regard to Bibi, who's been my friend 39 years, the president has met with Bibi a dozen times. He's spoken to Bibi Netanyahu as much as he's spoken to anybody. The idea that we're not — I was in a, just before he went to the U.N., I was in a conference call with the — with the president, with him talking to Bibi for well over an hour, in — in — in stark relief and detail of what was going on. This is a bunch of stuff. Look, here's the deal. RADDATZ:  What does that mean, a bunch of stuff? BIDEN:  Well, it means it's simply inaccurate. RYAN:  It's Irish. BIDEN:  It — it is. [ laughter ] We Irish call it malarkey. RADDATZ:  Thanks for the translation. OK. [ crosstalk ] BIDEN:  We Irish call it malarkey. But last thing. The secretary of defense has made it absolutely clear, we didn't walk anything back. We will not allow the Iranians to get a nuclear weapon. What Bibi held up there was when they get to the point where they can enrich uranium enough to put into a weapon. They don't have a weapon to put it into. Let's all calm down a little bit here. Iran is more isolated today than when we took office. It was on the ascendancy when we took office. It is totally isolated. RADDATZ:  Congressman Ryan? BIDEN:  I don't know what world this guy's living in. RYAN:  Thank heavens we had these sanctions in place. It's in spite of their opposition. BIDEN:  Oh, god. RYAN:  They've given 20 waivers to this sanction. And all I have to point to are the results. They're four years closer toward a nuclear weapon. I think that case speaks for itself. RADDATZ:  Can you tell the American people... BIDEN:  By the way, they... [ crosstalk ] RADDATZ:  What's worse, another war in the Middle East... BIDEN:  ... they are not four years closer to a nuclear weapon. RYAN:  Of course they are. BIDEN:  They're — they're closer to being able to get enough fissile material to put in a weapon if they had a weapon. RADDATZ:  You are acting a little bit like they don't want one. BIDEN:  Oh, I didn't say — no, I'm not saying that. But facts matter, Martha. You're a foreign policy expert. Facts matter. All this loose talk about them, "All they have to do is get to enrich uranium in a certain amount and they have a weapon," not true. Not true. They are more — and if we ever have to take action, unlike when we took office, we will have the world behind us, and that matters. That matters. RADDATZ:  What about Bob Gates' statement? Let me read that again, "could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations." BIDEN:  He is right. It could prove catastrophic, if we didn't do it with precision. RADDATZ:  Congressman Ryan? RYAN:  And what it does is it undermines our credibility by backing up the point when we make it that all options are on the table. That's the point. The ayatollahs see these kinds of statements and they think, "I'm going to get a nuclear weapon." When — when we see the kind of equivocation that took place because this administration wanted a precondition policy, so when the Green Revolution started up, they were silent for nine days. When they see us putting — when they see us putting daylight between ourselves and our allies in Israel, that gives them encouragement. When they see Russia watering down any further sanctions, the only reason we got a U.N. sanction is because Russia watered it down and prevented these central bank sanctions in the first place. So when they see this kind of activity, they are encouraged to continue, and that's the problem. BIDEN:  Martha, let me tell you what Russia...[ crosstalk ] RADDATZ:  Well, let me ask you what's worse, war in the Middle East, another war in the Middle East, or a nuclear-armed Iran? RYAN:  I'll tell you what's worse. I'll tell you what's worse. RADDATZ:  Quickly. RYAN:  A nuclear-armed Iran which triggers a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. This is the world's largest sponsor of — of terrorism. They've dedicated themselves...[ crosstalk ]... to wiping an entire country off the map. They call us the Great Satan. And if they get nuclear weapons, other people in the neighborhood will pursue their nuclear weapons, as well. RADDATZ:  Vice President Biden? RYAN:  We can't live with that. BIDEN:  War should always be the absolute last resort. That's why these crippling sanctions, which Bibi Netanyahu says we should continue, which — if I'm not mistaken — Governor Romney says we — we should continue. I may be mistaken. He changes his mind so often, I could be wrong. But the fact of the matter is, he says they're working. And the fact is that they are being crippled by them. And we've made it clear, big nations can't bluff. This president doesn't bluff. RADDATZ:  Gentlemen, I want to bring the conversation to a different kind of national security issue, the state of our economy. The number-one issue here at home is jobs. The percentage of unemployed just fell below 8 percent for the first time in 43 months. The Obama administration had projected that it would fall below 6 percent now after the addition of close to a trillion dollars in stimulus money. So will both of you level with the American people: Can you get unemployment to under 6 percent and how long will it take? BIDEN:  I don't know how long it will take. We can and we will get it under 6 percent. Let's look at — let's take a look at the facts. Let's look at where we were when we came to office. The economy was in free fall. We had — the great recession hit; 9 million people lost their job; $1.7 — $1.6 trillion in wealth lost in equity in your homes, in retirement accounts for the middle class. We knew we had to act for the middle class. We immediately went out and rescued General Motors. We went ahead and made sure that we cut taxes for the middle class. And in addition to that, when that — when that occurred, what did Romney do? Romney said, "No, let Detroit go bankrupt." We moved in and helped people refinance their homes. Governor Romney said, "No, let foreclosures hit the bottom." But it shouldn't be surprising for a guy who says 47 percent of the American people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives. My friend recently in a speech in Washington said "30 percent of the American people are takers." These people are my mom and dad — the people I grew up with, my neighbors. They pay more effective tax than Governor Romney pays in his federal income tax. They are elderly people who in fact are living off of Social Security. They are veterans and people fighting in Afghanistan right now who are, quote, "not paying any tax." I've had it up to here with this notion that 47 percent — it's about time they take some responsibility here. And instead of signing pledges to Grover Norquist not to ask the wealthiest among us to contribute to bring back the middle class, they should be signing a pledge saying to the middle class we're going to level the playing field; we're going to give you a fair shot again; we are going to not repeat the mistakes we made in the past by having a different set of rules for Wall Street and Main Street, making sure that we continue to hemorrhage these tax cuts for the super wealthy. They're pushing the continuation of a tax cut that will give an additional $500 billion in tax cuts to 120,000 families. And they're holding hostage the middle class tax cut because they say we won't pass — we won't continue the middle class tax cut unless you give the tax cut for the super wealthy. It's about time they take some responsibility. RADDATZ:  Mr. Ryan? RYAN:  Joe and I are from similar towns. He's from Scranton, Pennsylvania. I'm from Janesville, Wisconsin. You know what the unemployment rate in Scranton is today? BIDEN:  I sure do. RYAN:  It's 10 percent. BIDEN:  Yeah. RYAN:  You know what it was the day you guys came in — 8.5 percent. BIDEN:  Yeah. RYAN:  That's how it's going all around America. Look... BIDEN:  You don't read the statistics. That's not how it's going. It's going down. RADDATZ:  [ inaudible ] two-minute answer [ inaudible ] RYAN:  Look, did they come in and inherit a tough situation? Absolutely. But we're going in the wrong direction. Look at where we are. The economy is barely limping along. It's growing a 1.3 percent. That's slower than it grew last year and last year was slower than the year before. Job growth in September was slower than it was in August, and August was slower than it was in July. We're heading in the wrong direction; 23 million Americans are struggling for work today; 15 percent of Americans are living in poverty today. This is not what a real recovery looks like. We need real reforms for real recovery and that's exactly what Mitt Romney and I are proposing. It's a five-point plan. Get America energy independent in North America by the end of the decade. Help people who are hurting get the skills they need to get the jobs they want. Get this deficit and debt under control to prevent a debt crisis. Make trade work for America so we can make more things in America and sell them overseas, and champion small businesses. Don't raise taxes on small businesses because they're our job creators. RYAN:  He talks about Detroit. Mitt Romney's a car guy. They keep misquoting him, but let me tell you about the Mitt Romney I know. This is a guy who I was talking to a family in Northborough, Massachusetts the other day, Sheryl and Mark Nixon. Their kids were hit in a car crash, four of them. Two of them, Rob and Reed, were paralyzed. The Romneys didn't know them. They went to the same church; they never met before. Mitt asked if he could come over on Christmas. He brought his boys, his wife, and gifts. Later on, he said, "I know you're struggling, Mark. Don't worry about their college. I'll pay for it." When Mark told me this story, because, you know what, Mitt Romney doesn't tell these stories. The Nixons told this story. When he told me this story, he said it wasn't the help, the cash help. It's that he gave his time, and he has consistently. This is a man who gave 30 percent of his income to charity, more than the two of us combined. Mitt Romney's a good man. He cares about 100 percent of Americans in this country. And with respect to that quote, I think the vice president very well knows that sometimes the words don't come out of your mouth the right way. [ laughter ] BIDEN:  But I always say what I mean. And so does Romney. RYAN:  We want everybody to succeed. We want to get people out of poverty, in the middle class, onto a life of self-sufficiently. We believe in opportunity and upward mobility. That's what we're going to push for in a Romney administration. RADDATZ:  Vice president? I have a feeling you have a few things to say here. BIDEN:  The idea — if you heard that — that little soliloquy on 47 percent and you think he just made a mistake, then I think you're — I — I think — I got a bridge to sell you. Look, I don't doubt his personal generosity. And I understand what it's like. When I was a little younger than the congressman, my wife was in an accident, killed my daughter and my wife, and my two sons survived. I have sat in the homes of many people who've gone through what I get through, because the one thing you can give people solace is to know if they know you've been through it, that they can make it. So I don't doubt his personal commitment to individuals. But you know what? I know he had no commitment to the automobile industry. He just — he said, let it go bankrupt, period. Let it drop out. All this talk — we saved a million jobs. Two hundred thousand people are working today. And I've never met two guys who're more down on America across the board. We're told everything's going bad. There are 5.2 million new jobs, private-sector jobs. We need more, but 5.2 million — if they'd get out of the way, if they'd get out of the way and let us pass the tax cut for the middle class, make it permanent, if they get out of the way and pass the — pass the jobs bill, if they get out of the way and let us allow 14 million people who are struggling to stay in their homes because their mortgages are upside down, but they never missed a mortgage payment, just get out of the way. Stop talking about how you care about people. Show me something. Show me a policy. Show me a policy where you take responsibility. And, by the way, they talk about this Great Recession if it fell out of the sky, like, "Oh, my goodness, where did it come from?" It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, to at the same time put a prescription drug benefit on the credit card, a trillion-dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. I was there. I voted against them. I said, no, we can't afford that. And now, all of a sudden, these guys are so seized with the concern about the debt that they created. RADDATZ:  Congressman Ryan? RYAN:  Let's not forget that they came in with one-party control. When Barack Obama was elected, his party controlled everything. They had the ability to do everything of their choosing. And look at where we are right now. They passed the stimulus. The idea that we could borrow $831 billion, spend it on all of these special interest groups, and that it would work out just fine, that unemployment would never get to 8 percent — it went up above 8 percent for 43 months. They said that, right now, if we just passed this stimulus, the economy would grow at 4 percent. It's growing at 1.3. RADDATZ:  When could you get it below 6 percent? RYAN:  That's what our entire premise of our pro-growth plan for a stronger middle class is all about: getting the economy growing at 4 percent, creating 12 million jobs over the next four years. Look at just the $90 billion in stimulus. The vice president was in charge of overseeing this. $90 billion in green pork to campaign contributors and special interest groups. There are just at the Department of Energy over 100 criminal investigations that have been launched into just how stimulus...[ crosstalk ] BIDEN:  Martha... RADDATZ:  Go ahead. Go ahead. BIDEN:  Martha, look. His colleague... RYAN:  Crony capitalism and corporate welfare. BIDEN:  ... runs an investigative committee, spent months and months and months going into this. RYAN:  This is the — this is the inspector general. BIDEN:  Months and months. They found no evidence of cronyism. And I love my friend here. I — I'm not allowed to show letters but go on our website, he sent me two letters saying, "By the way, can you send me some stimulus money for companies here in the state of Wisconsin?" We sent millions of dollars. You know...[ crosstalk ] RADDATZ:  You did ask for stimulus money, correct? BIDEN:  Sure he did. By the way... RYAN:  On two occasions we — we — we advocated for constituents who were applying for grants. That's what we do. We do that for all constituents who are...[ crosstalk ] BIDEN:  I love that. I love that. This was such a bad program and he writes me a letter saying — writes the Department of Energy a letter saying, "The reason we need this stimulus, it will create growth and jobs." His words. And now he's sitting here looking at me. And by the way, that program, again, investigated. What the Congress said was it was a model. Less than four-tenths of 1 percent waste or fraud in the program. And all this talk about cronyism. They investigated and investigated, did not find one single piece of evidence. I wish he would just tell — be a little more candid. RYAN:  Was it a good idea to spend taxpayer dollars on electric cars in Finland, or on windmills in China? BIDEN:  Look... RYAN:  Was it a good idea to borrow all this money from countries like China and spend it on all these various different interest groups? BIDEN:  Let me tell you what was a good idea. It was a good idea, Moody's and others said that this was exactly what we needed to stop this from going off the cliff. It set the conditions to be able to grow again. We have, in fact, 4 percent of those green jobs didn't go under — went under, didn't work. It's a better batting average than investment bankers have. They have about a 40 percent... RYAN:  Where are the 5 million green jobs that were being... RADDATZ:  I want to move on here to Medicare and entitlements. I think we've gone over this quite enough. BIDEN:  By the way, any letter you send me, I'll entertain. RYAN:  I appreciate that, Joe. [ laughter ] RADDATZ:  Let's talk about Medicare and entitlements. Both Medicare and Social Security are going broke and taking a larger share of the budget in the process. Will benefits for Americans under these programs have to change for the programs to survive? Mr. Ryan? RYAN:  Absolutely. Medicare and Social Security are going bankrupt. These are indisputable facts. Look, when I look at these programs, we've all had tragedies in our lives. I think about what they've done for my own family. My mom and I had my grandmother move in with us who was facing Alzheimer's. Medicare was there for here, just like it's there for my mom right now who is a Florida senior. After my dad died, my mom and I got Social Security survivors benefits, helped me pay for college, it helped her go back to college in her 50s where she started a small business because of the new skills she got. She paid all of her taxes on the promise that these programs would be there for her. We will honor this promise. And the best way to do it is reform it for my generation. You see, if you reform these programs for my generation, people 54 and below, you can guarantee they don't change for people in or near retirement, which is precisely what Mitt Romney and I are proposing. Look what — look what Obamacare does. Obamacare takes $716 billion from Medicare to spend on Obamacare. Even their own chief actuary at Medicare backs this up. He says you can't spend the same dollar twice. You can't claim that this money goes to Medicare and Obamacare. RYAN:  And then they put this new Obamacare board in charge of cutting Medicare each and every year in ways that will lead to denied care for current seniors. This board, by the way, it's 15 people, the president's supposed to appoint them next year. And not one of them even has to have medical training. And Social Security? If we don't shore up Social Security, when we run out of the IOUs, when the program goes bankrupt, a 25 percent across-the-board benefit cut kicks in on current seniors in the middle of their retirement. We're going to stop that from happening. They haven't put a credible solution on the table. He'll tell you about vouchers. He'll say all these things to try and scare people. Here's what we're saying: give younger people, when they become Medicare eligible, guaranteed coverage options that you can't be denied, including traditional Medicare. Choose your plan, and then Medicare subsidizes your premiums, not as much for the wealthy people, more coverage for middle-income people, and total out-of-pocket coverage for the poor and the sick. Choice and competition. We would rather have 50 million future seniors determine how their Medicare is delivered to them instead of 15 bureaucrats deciding what, if, when, where they get it. RADDATZ:  Vice President Biden, two minutes. BIDEN:  You know, I heard that death panel argument from Sarah Palin. It seems every vice presidential debate I hear this kind of stuff about panels. But let's talk about Medicare. What we did is, we saved $716 billion and put it back, applied it to Medicare. We cut the cost of Medicare. We stopped overpaying insurance companies, doctors and hospitals. The AMA supported what we did. AARP endorsed what we did. And it extends the life of Medicare to 2024. They want to wipe this all out. It also gave more benefits. Any senior out there, ask yourself: Do you have more benefits today? You do. If you're near the donut hole, you have $800 — $600 more to help your prescription drug costs. You get wellness visits without co-pays. They wipe all of this out, and Medicare goes — becomes insolvent in 2016, number one. Number two, "guaranteed benefit"? It's a voucher. When they first proposed — when the congressman had his first voucher program, the CBO said it would cost $6,400 a year, Martha, more for every senior, 55 and below, when they got there. He knew that, yet he got all the guys in Congress and women in the Republican Party to vote for it. Governor Romney, knowing that, said, I would sign it, were I there. Who you believe, the AMA, me, a guy who's fought his whole life for this, or somebody who would actually put in motion a plan that knowingly cut — added $6,400 a year more to the cost of Medicare? Now they got a new plan: "Trust me, it's not going to cost you any more." Folks, follow your instincts on this one. And with regard to Social Security, we will not — we will not privatize it. If we had listened to Romney, Governor Romney, and the congressman during the Bush years, imagine where all those seniors would be now if their money had been in the market. Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad, and they eliminate the guarantee of Medicare. RYAN:  Here's the problem. They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, turning Medicare into a piggybank for Obamacare. Their own actuary from the administration came to Congress and said one out of six hospitals and nursing homes are going to go out of business as a result of this. BIDEN:  That's not what they said. RYAN:  7.4 million seniors are projected to lose their current Medicare Advantage coverage they have. That's a $3,200 benefit cut. BIDEN:  That didn't happen. RYAN:  What we're saying... BIDEN:  More people signed up. RYAN:  These are from your own actuaries. BIDEN:  More — more — more people signed up for Medicare Advantage after the change. RYAN:  What — there's... BIDEN:  Nobody is...[ crosstalk ] RYAN:  Mr. Vice President, I know... BIDEN:  No, this is...[ crosstalk ] RYAN:  Mr. Vice President, I know you're under a lot of duress to make up for lost ground, but I think people would be better served if we don't keep interrupting each other. BIDEN:  Well, don't take all the four minutes then. RYAN:  Let me just — let me just say this. We are not — we're saying don't change benefits for people 55 and above. They already organized their retirement around these promises. [ crosstalk ]... programs for those of us. RADDATZ:  But let — let me ask you this. What — what is your specific plan for seniors who really can't afford to make up the difference in the value of what you call a premium support plan and others call a voucher? RYAN:  Hundred percent coverage... RADDATZ:  And what...[ crosstalk ] RYAN:  That's what we're saying. So we're saying... RADDATZ:  How do you make that up? RYAN:  ... income adjusts [ inaudible ] these premium support payments by taking down the subsidies for wealthy people. Look, this is a plan — by the way, that $6,400 number, it was misleading then, it's totally inaccurate now. This is a plan that's bipartisan. It's a plan I put together with a prominent Democrat senator from Oregon. BIDEN:  There's not one Democrat who endorses it. RYAN:  It's a plan... BIDEN:  Not one Democrat who [ inaudible ]. RYAN:  Our partner is a Democrat from Oregon. BIDEN:  And he said he does no longer support [ inaudible ]. RYAN:  We — we — we put it — we put it together with the former Clinton budget director. BIDEN:  Who disavows it. RYAN:  This idea — this idea came from the Clinton commission to save Medicare chaired by Senator John Breaux. Here's the point, Martha. BIDEN:  Which was rejected. RYAN:  If we don't — if we don't fix this problem pretty soon then current seniors get cut. Here's the problem: 10,000 people are retiring every single day in America today and they will for 20 years. That's not a political thing, that's a math thing. BIDEN:  Martha, if we just did one thing, if we just — if they just allowed Medicare to bargain for the cost of drugs like Medicaid can, that would save $156 billion right off the bat. RYAN:  And it would deny seniors choices. BIDEN:  All — all — all... RYAN:  It has a restricted...[ crosstalk ] BIDEN:  Seniors are not denied. RYAN:  Absolutely. BIDEN:  They are not denied. Look, folks, all you seniors out there, have you been denied choices? Have you lost Medicare Advantage. RYAN:  Because it's working well right now. [ crosstalk ] BIDEN:  Because we've changed the law. RADDATZ:  Vice President Biden, let me ask you, if it could help solve the problem, why not very slowly raise the Medicare eligibility age by two years, as Congressman Ryan suggests? BIDEN:  Look, I was there when we did that with Social Security in 1983. I was one of eight people sitting in the room that included Tip O'Neill negotiating with President Reagan. We all got together and everybody said, as long as everybody's in the deal, everybody's in the deal, and everybody is making some sacrifice, we can find a way. We made the system solvent to 2033. We will not, though, be part of any voucher plan eliminating — the voucher says, "Mom, when you're — when you're 65, go out there, shop for the best insurance you can get. You're out of Medicare." You can buy back in if you want with this voucher, which will not keep pace — will not keep pace with health care costs. Because if it did keep pace with health care costs, there would be no savings. That's why they go the voucher. They — we will be no part of a voucher program or the privatization of Social Security. RYAN:  A voucher is you go to your mailbox, get a check, and buy something. Nobody's proposing that. Barack Obama four years ago running for president said if you don't have any fresh ideas, use stale tactics to scare voters. If you don't have a good record to run on, paint your opponent as someone people should run from. [ crosstalk ] Make a big election about small ideas. RADDATZ:  You were one of the few lawmakers to stand with President Bush when he was seeking to partially privatize Social Security. RYAN:  For younger people. What we said then, and what I've always agreed is let younger Americans have a voluntary choice of making their money work faster for them within the Social Security system. BIDEN:  You saw how well that worked. RYAN:  That's not what Mitt Romney's proposing. What we're saying is no changes for anybody 55 and above. BIDEN:  What Mitt Romney is proposing... RYAN:  And then the kinds of changes we're talking about for younger people like myself is don't increase the benefits for wealthy people as fast as everybody else. Slowly raise the retirement age over time. BIDEN:  Martha... RYAN:  It wouldn't get to the age of 70 until the year 2103 according to the actuaries. Now, here's...[ crosstalk ] RADDATZ:  Quickly, Vice President? BIDEN:  Quickly. The bottom line here is that all the studies show that if we went with Social Security proposal made by Mitt Romney, if you're 40 — in your 40s now you will pay $2,600 a year — you get $2,600 a year less in Social Security. If you're in your 20s now, you get $4,700 [ inaudible ] less. The idea of changing, and change being in this case to cut the benefits for people without taking other action you could do to make it work is absolutely the wrong way. These — look, these guys haven't been big on Medicare from the beginning. Their party's not been big on Medicare from the beginning. And they've always been about Social Security as little as you can do. Look, folks, use your common sense. Who do you trust on this — a man who introduced a bill that would raise it 40 — $6,400 a year; knowing it and passing it, and Romney saying he'd sign it, or me and the president? RYAN:  That statistic was completely misleading. But more importantly... BIDEN:  That's — there are the facts right...[ crosstalk ] RYAN:  This is what politicians do when they don't have a record to run on: try to scare people from voting for you. If you don't get ahead of this problem, it's going to...[ crosstalk ] BIDEN:  Medicare beneficiaries — there are more beneficiaries...[ crosstalk ] RADDATZ:  We're going to — we're going to move...[ crosstalk ]... very simple question...[ crosstalk ] RYAN:  We're not going to run away. Medicare and Social Security did so much for my own family. We are not going to jeopardize this program, but we have to save it...[ crosstalk ] BIDEN:  You are jeopardizing this program. You're changing the program from a guaranteed benefit to premium support. Whatever you call it, the bottom line is people are going to have to pay more money out of their pocket and the families I know and the families I come from, they don't have the money to pay more out...[ crosstalk ] RYAN:  That's why we're saying more for lower income people and less for higher income people. RADDATZ:  Gentlemen, I would like to move on to a very simple question for both of you, and something tells me I won't get a very simple answer, but let me ask you this. BIDEN:  I gave you a simple answer. He's raising the cost of Medicare. RADDATZ:  OK, on to taxes. If your ticket is elected, who will pay more in taxes? Who will pay less? And we're starting with Vice President Biden for two minutes. BIDEN:  The middle class will pay less and people making $1 million or more will begin to contribute slightly more. Let me give you one concrete example. The continuation of the Bush tax cuts — we are arguing that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be allowed to expire. Of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, $800 million — billion of that goes to people making a minimum of $1 million. We see no justification in these economic times for those, and they're patriotic Americans. They're not asking for this continued tax cut. They're not suggesting it, but my friends are insisting on it; 120,000 families by continuing that tax cut will get an additional $500 billion in tax relief in the next 10 years and their income is an average of $8 million. We want to extend permanently the middle-class tax cut for — permanently, from the Bush middle-class tax cut. These guys won't allow us to. You know what they're saying? We say "let's have a vote — let's have a vote on the middle-class tax cut and let's have a vote on the upper tax cut; let's go ahead and vote on it." They're saying no. They're holding hostage the middle class tax cut to the super wealthy. And on top of that, they've got another tax cut coming that's $5 trillion that all of the studies point out will in fact give another $250 million — yeah, $250,000 a year to those 120,000 families and raise taxes for people who are middle income with a child by $2,000 a year. This is unconscionable. There is no need for this. The middle class got knocked on their heels. The great recession crushed them. They need some help now. The last people who need help are 120,000 families for another — another $500 billion tax cut over the next 10 years. RADDATZ:  Congressman? RYAN:  Our entire premise of these tax reform plans is to grow the economy and create jobs. It's a plan that's estimated to create 7 million jobs. Now, we think that government taking 28 percent of a family and business's income is enough. President Obama thinks that the government ought to be able to take as much as 44.8 percent of a small business's income. Look, if you taxed every person and successful business making over $250,000 at 100 percent, it would only run the government for 98 days. If everybody who paid income taxes last year, including successful small businesses, doubled their income taxes this year, we'd still have a $300 billion deficit. You see? There aren't enough rich people and small businesses to tax to pay for all their spending. And so the next time you hear them say, "Don't worry about it, we'll get a few wealthy people to pay their fair share," watch out, middle class, the tax bill's coming to you. That's why we're saying we need fundamental tax reform. Let's take a look at it this way. Eight out of 10 businesses, they file their taxes as individuals, not as corporations. And where I come from, overseas, which is Lake Superior, the Canadians, they dropped their tax rates to 15 percent. The average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 25 percent, and the president wants the top effective tax rate on successful small businesses to go above 40 percent. Two-thirds of our jobs come from small businesses. This one tax would actually tax about 53 percent of small-business income. It's expected to cost us 710,000 jobs. And you know what? It doesn't even pay for 10 percent of their proposed deficit spending increases. What we are saying is, lower tax rates across the board and close loopholes, primarily to the higher-income people. We have three bottom lines: Don't raise the deficit, don't raise taxes on the middle class, and don't lower the share of income that is borne by the high-income earners. He'll keep saying this $5 trillion plan, I suppose. It's been discredited by six other studies. And even their own deputy campaign manager acknowledged that it wasn't correct. RADDATZ:  Well, let's talk about this 20 percent. You have refused — and, again — to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. Do you actually have the specifics? Or are you still working on it, and that's why you won't tell voters? RYAN:  Different than this administration, we actually want to have big bipartisan agreements. You see, I understand the... RADDATZ:  Do you have the specifics? Do you have the...[ crosstalk ] BIDEN:  That would — that would be a first for the Republican Congress. RADDATZ:  Do you know exactly what you're doing? RYAN:  Look — look at what Mitt Romney — look at what Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill did. They worked together out of a framework to lower tax rates and broaden the base, and they worked together to fix that. What we're saying is, here's our framework. Lower tax rates 20 percent. We raised about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. We forego about $1.1 trillion in loopholes and deductions. And so what we're saying is, deny those loopholes and deductions to higher-income taxpayers so that more of their income is taxed, which has a broader base of taxation... BIDEN:  Can I translate? RYAN:  ... so we can lower tax rates across the board. Now, here's why I'm saying this. What we're saying is, here's the framework... BIDEN:  I hope I'm going to get time to respond to this. RADDATZ:  You'll get time. RYAN:  We want to work with Congress — we want to work with the Congress on how best to achieve this. That means successful. Look... RADDATZ:  No specifics, again. RYAN:  Mitt — what we're saying is, lower tax rates 20 percent, start with the wealthy, work with Congress to do it... RADDATZ:  And you guarantee this math will add up? RYAN:  Absolutely. Six studies have guaranteed — six studies have verified that this math adds up. But here's... RADDATZ:  Vice President Biden...[ crosstalk ] BIDEN:  Look...[ crosstalk ]... let me translate. Let me have a chance to translate. RYAN:  I'll come back in a second, then, right? BIDEN:  First of all, I was there when Ronald Reagan tax breaks — he gave specifics of what he was going to cut, number one, in terms of tax expenditures. Number two, 97 percent of the small businesses in America pay less — make less than $250,000. Let me tell you who some of those other small businesses are: hedge funds that make $600 million, $800 million a year. That's — that's what they count as small businesses, because they're pass- through. Let's look at how sincere they are. Ronald — I mean, excuse me, Governor Romney on "60 Minutes" — I guess it was about 10 days ago — was asked, "Governor, you pay 14 percent on $20 million. Someone making $50,000 pays more than that. Do you think that's fair?" He said, "Oh, yes, that's fair. That's fair." This is — and they're going to talk — you think these guys are going to go out there and cut those loopholes? The loophole — the biggest loophole they take advantage of is the carried interest loophole and — and capital gains loophole. They exempt that. Now, there's not enough — the reason why the AEI study, the American Enterprise Institute study, the Tax Policy Center study, the reason they all say it's going — taxes go up on the middle class, the only way you can find $5 trillion in loopholes is cut the mortgage deduction for middle-class people, cut the health care deduction, middle-class people, take away their ability to get a tax break to send their kids to college. That's why they arrive at it. RADDATZ:  Is he wrong about that? RYAN:  He is wrong about that. They're... BIDEN:  How's that? RYAN:  You can — you can cut tax rates by 20 percent and still preserve these important preferences for middle-class taxpayers... BIDEN:  Not mathematically possible. RYAN:  It is mathematically possible. It's been done before. It's precisely what we're proposing. BIDEN:  It has never been done before. RYAN:  It's been done a couple of times, actually. BIDEN:  It has never been done before. RYAN:  Jack Kennedy lowered tax rates, increased growth. Ronald Reagan... BIDEN:  Oh, now you're Jack Kennedy? [ laughter ] RYAN:  Ronald Reagan — Republicans and Democrats... BIDEN:  This is amazing. RYAN:  Republican and Democrats have worked together on this. BIDEN:  That's right. RYAN:  You know, I understand you guys aren't used to doing bipartisan deals... BIDEN:  But we told each other what we're going to do. RYAN:  Republicans and Democrats... BIDEN:  When we did it Reagan, we said, here — here are the things we're going to cut. [ crosstalk ] That's what we said. RYAN:  We said here's the framework, let's work together to fill in the details. That's exactly... BIDEN:  Fill in the detail. RYAN:  That's how you get things done. You work with Congress — look, let me say it this way. [ crosstalk ] BIDEN:  That's coming from a Republican Congress working bipartisanly, 7 percent rating? Come on. RYAN:  Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, where 87 percent of the legislators he served, which were Democrats. He didn't demonize them. He didn't demagogue them. He met with those party leaders every week. He reached across the aisle. He didn't compromise principles. BIDEN:  And you saw what happened. RYAN:  He found common ground — and he balanced the budget... BIDEN:  You saw — if he did such a great job... RADDATZ:  Mr. Vice President...[ crosstalk ] RYAN:  ... four times without raising taxes... BIDEN:  Why isn't he even contesting Massachusetts? [ crosstalk ] RADDATZ:  Mr. Vice President, what would you suggest — what would you suggest beyond raising taxes on the wealthy, that would substantially reduce the long-term deficit? BIDEN:  Just let the taxes expire like they're supposed to on those millionaires. We don't — we can't afford $800 billion going to people making a minimum of $1 million. They do not need it, Martha. Those 120,000 families make $8 million a year. Middle-class people need the help. Why does my friend cut out the tuition tax credit for them? Why does he go after the childcare... RADDATZ:  Can you declare anything off-limits? BIDEN:  Why do they do that? RADDATZ:  Can you declare anything off-limits? RYAN:  Yeah, we're saying close loopholes... RADDATZ:  Home mortgage deduction? RYAN:  ... on high-interest people. RADDATZ:  Home mortgage deduction? RYAN:  For higher-income people. Here... BIDEN:  Can you guarantee that no one making less than $100,000 will have a mortgage — their mortgage deduction impacted? Guarantee? RYAN:  This taxes a million small businesses. He keeps trying to make you think that it's just some movie star or hedge fund guy or an actor... BIDEN:  Ninety-seven percent of the small businesses make less than $250,000 a year, would not be affected. RYAN:  Joe, you know it hits a million — this taxes a million people, a million small businesses. BIDEN:  Does it tax 97 percent of the American businesses? RYAN:  It taxes a million small businesses... BIDEN:  Small businesses? RYAN:  ... who are our greatest job creators. BIDEN:  I wish I'd get — the "greatest job creators" are the hedge fund guys. RADDATZ:  And you're — and you're going to increase the defense budget. RYAN:  Think about it this way. RADDATZ:  And you're going to increase the defense budget. RYAN:  No, we're not just going to cut the defense budget like they're — they're proposing... BIDEN:  They're going to increase it $2 billion. RYAN:  That's not...[ crosstalk ] We're talking about... RADDATZ:  So no massive defense increases? RYAN:  No, we're saying don't — OK, you want to get into defense now? RADDATZ:  Yes, I do. I do, because that's another math question. RYAN:  So — right, OK. RADDATZ:  How do you do that? RYAN:  So they proposed a $478 billion cut to defense to begin with. Now we have another $500 billion cut to defense that's lurking on the horizon. They insisted upon that cut being involved in the debt negotiations, and so we have a $1 trillion cut... RADDATZ:  Let's put the automatic defense cuts aside, OK? RYAN:  Right, OK. RADDATZ:  Let's put those aside. No one wants that. BIDEN:  I'd like to go back to that. RADDATZ:  But I want to know how you do the math and have this increase in defense spending? BIDEN:  Two trillion dollars. RYAN:  You don't cut defense by a trillion dollars. That's what we're talking about. RADDATZ:  And what — what national security issues justify an increase? BIDEN:  Who's cutting it by $1 trillion? RYAN:  We're going to cut 80,000 soldiers, 20,000 Marines, 120 cargo planes. We're going to push the Joint Strike Fighter out... RADDATZ:  Drawing down in one war and one war... RYAN:  If these cuts go through, our Navy will be the smallest — the smallest it has been since before World War I. This invites weakness. Look, do we believe in peace through strength? You bet we do. And that means you don't impose these devastating cuts on our military. So we're saying don't cut the military by a trillion dollars. Not increase it by a trillion, don't cut it by a trillion dollars. RADDATZ:  Quickly, Vice President Biden on this. I want to move on. BIDEN:  Look, we don't cut it. And I might add, this so-called — I know we don't want to use the fancy word "sequester," this automatic cut — that was part of a debt deal that they asked for. And let me tell you what my friend said at a press conference announcing his support of the deal. He said, and I'm paraphrase, We've been looking for this moment for a long time. RYAN:  Can I tell you what that meant? [ crosstalk ] We've been looking for bipartisanship for a long time. BIDEN:  And so the bipartisanship is what he voted for, the automatic cuts in defense if they didn't act. And beyond that, they asked for another — look, the military says we need a smaller, leaner Army, we need more special forces, we need — we don't need more M1 tanks, what we need is more UAVs. RADDATZ:  Some of the military. [ crosstalk ] BIDEN:  Not some of the military. That was the decision of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recommended to us and agreed to by the president. That is a fact. RADDATZ:  Who answers to a civilian leader. BIDEN:  They made the recommendation first. RADDATZ:  OK. Let's move on to Afghanistan. RYAN:  Can I get into that for a second? RADDATZ:  I'd like to move on to Afghanistan please. And that's one of the biggest expenditures this country has made, in dollars, and more importantly in lives. We just passed the sad milestone of losing 2,000 U.S. troops there in this war. More than 50 of them were killed this year by the very Afghan forces we are trying to help. Now, we've reached the recruiting goal for Afghan forces, we've degraded Al Qaida. So tell me, why not leave now? What more can we really accomplish? Is it worth more American lives? RYAN:  We don't want to lose the gains we've gotten. We want to make sure that the Taliban does not come back in and give Al Qaida a safe haven. We agree with the administration on their 2014 transition. Look, when I think about Afghanistan, I think about the incredible job that our troops have done. You've been there more than the two of us combined. First time I was there in 2002, it was amazing to me what they were facing. When I went to the Ahgandah [ ph ] Valley in Kandahar before the surge, I sat down with a young private in the 82nd from the Monamanee [ ph ] Indian reservation who would tell me what he did every day, and I was in awe. And to see what they had in front of them. And then to go back there in December, to go throughout Helmand with the Marines, to see what they had accomplished, it's nothing short of amazing. What we don't want to do is lose the gains we've gotten. Now, we've disagreed from time to time on a few issues. We would have more likely taken into accounts the recommendations from our commanders, General Petraeus, Admiral Mullen, on troop levels throughout this year's fighting season. We've been skeptical about negotiations with the Taliban, especially while they're shooting at us. But we want to see the 2014 transition be successful, and that means we want to make sure our commanders have what they need to make sure that it is successful so that this does not once again become a launching pad for terrorists. RADDATZ:  Vice President Biden? BIDEN:  Martha, let's keep our eye on the ball. The reason — I've been in and out of Afghanistan and Iraq 20 times. I've been up in the Konar [ ph ] Valley. I've been throughout that whole country, mostly in a helicopter, and sometimes in a vehicle. The fact is, we went there for one reason: to get those people who killed Americans, Al Qaida. We've decimated Al Qaida central. We have eliminated Osama bin Laden. That was our purpose. And, in fact, in the meantime, what we said we would do, we would help train the Afghan military. It's their responsibility to take over their own security. That's why with 49 of our allies in Afghanistan, we've agreed on a gradual drawdown so we're out of there by the year 20 — in the year 2014. My friend and the governor say it's based on conditions, which means it depends. It does not depend for us. It is the responsibility of the Afghans to take care of their own security. We have trained over 315,000, mostly without incident. There have been more than two dozen cases of green-on-blue where Americans have been killed. If we do not — if the measures the military has taken do not take hold, we will not go on joint patrols. We will not train in the field. We'll only train in the — in the Army bases that exist there. But we are leaving. We are leaving in 2014. Period. And in the process, we're going to be saving over the next 10 years another $800 billion. We've been in this war for over a decade. The primary objective is almost completed. Now, all we're doing is putting the Kabul government in a position to be able to maintain their own security. It's their responsibility, not America's. RADDATZ:  What — what conditions could justify staying, Congressman Ryan? RYAN:  We don't want to stay. We want — look, one of my best friends in Janesville, a reservist, is at a forward-operating base in eastern Afghanistan right now. Our wives are best friends. Our daughters are best friends. I want — I want him and all of our troops to come home as soon and safely as possible. We want to make sure that 2014 is successful. That's why we want to make sure that we give our commanders what they say they need to make it successful. We don't want to extend beyond 2014. That's the point we're making. You know, if it was just this, I'd feel like we would — we would be able to call this a success, but it's not. What we are witnessing as we turn on our television screens these days is the absolute unraveling of the Obama foreign policy. Problems are growing at home, but — problems are growing abroad, but jobs aren't growing here at home. RADDATZ:  Let me go back to this. He says we're absolutely leaving in 2014. You're saying that's not an absolute, but you won't talk about what conditions would justify...[ crosstalk ] RYAN:  Do you know why we say that? BIDEN:  I'd like to know...[ crosstalk ] RYAN:  Because we don't want to broadcast to our enemies "put a date on your calendar, wait us out, and then come back." We want to make sure...[ crosstalk ] RADDATZ:  But you agree with the timeline. RYAN:  We do agree — we do agree with the timeline and the transition, but what we — what any administration will do in 2013 is assess the situation to see how best to complete this timeline. What we do not want to do... BIDEN:  We will leave in 2014. RYAN:  ... what we don't want to do is give our allies reason to trust us less and our enemies more — we don't want to embolden our enemies to hold and wait out for us and then take over...[ crosstalk ] BIDEN:  Martha, that's a bizarre statement. RYAN:  That's why we want to make sure — no, that's why we want to make sure that...[ crosstalk ] BIDEN:  Forty-nine of our allies — hear me — 49 of our allies signed on to this position. RYAN:  And we're reading that they want to...[ crosstalk ] BIDEN:  Forty-nine — 49 of our allies said "out in 2014." It's the responsibility of the Afghans. We have other responsibilities... [ crosstalk ] RADDATZ:  Do you really think that this timeline...[ crosstalk ] RYAN:  Which is — which is...[ crosstalk ] RADDATZ:  We have — we have soldiers and Marines. We have Afghan forces murdering our forces over there. The Taliban is, do you think, taking advantage of this timeline? BIDEN:  Look, the Taliban — what we've found out, and we — you saw it in Iraq, Martha, unless you set a timeline, Baghdad, in the case of Iraq, and — and Kabul, in the case of Afghanistan will not step up. They're happy to let us continue to do the job; international security forces to do the job. The only way they step up is to say, "Fellas, we're leaving; we've trained you; step up, step up." RADDATZ:  Let me go back. BIDEN:  That's the only way it works. RADDATZ:  Let me go back to the — the surge troops that we put in there. And — and you brought this up, Congressman Ryan. I have talked to a lot of troops. I've talked to senior offices who were concerned that the surge troops were pulled out during the fighting season, and some of them saw that as a political — as a political move. So can you tell me, Vice President Biden, what was the military reason for bringing those surge troops home... BIDEN:  The military reason... RADDATZ:  ... before the fighting had ended? BIDEN:  ... was bringing — by the way, when the president announced the surge, you'll remember, Martha, he said the surge will be out by the end of the summer. The military said the surge will be out. Nothing political about this. Before the surge occurred — so you be a little straight with me here, too — before the surge occurred, we said they'll be out by the end of the summer. That's what the military said. The reason for that is... RADDATZ:  The military follows orders. I mean, there — trust me. There are people who were concerned about pulling out on the fighting season. BIDEN:  Sure. There are people that are concerned, but not the Joint Chiefs. That was their recommendation in the Oval Office to the president of the United States of America. I sat there. I'm sure you'll find someone who disagrees with the Pentagon. I'm positive you'll find that within the military. But that's not the case here. And, secondly, the reason why the military said that is, you cannot wait and have a cliff. It takes — you know — months and months and months to draw down forces. RYAN:  Let me...[ crosstalk ] Let me try and illustrate the issue here, because I think this — it can get a little confusing. We've all met with General Allen and General Scaparrotti in Afghanistan to talk about fighting seasons. Here's the way it works. The mountain passes fill in with snow. The Taliban and the terrorists and the Haqqani and the Quetta Shura come over from Pakistan to fight our men and women. When it fills in with snow, they can't do it. That's what we call fighting seasons. In the warm months, fighting gets really high. In the winter, it goes down. And so when Admiral Mullen and General Petraeus came to Congress and said, if you pull these people out before the fighting season is end, it puts people more at risk. That's the problem. Yes, we drew 22,000 troops down last month, but the remaining troops that are there, who still have the same mission to prosecute counterinsurgency, are doing it with fewer people. That makes them less safe. BIDEN:  Fighting season... RYAN:  We're sending fewer people out in all of these hotspots to do the same job that they were supposed to do a month ago. BIDEN:  Because we turned it over... RYAN:  But we took 22,000 people out... BIDEN:  ... we turned it over to the Afghan troops we trained. No one got pulled out that didn't get filled in by trained Afghan personnel. And he's — he's conflating two issues. The fighting season that Petraeus was talking about and former — and Admiral Mullen was the fighting season this spring. That's what he was talking about. We did not — we did not pull them out. RYAN:  The calendar works the same every year. BIDEN:  It does work the same every year. But we're not staying there... RYAN:  Spring, summer, fall. It's warm, or it's not. They're still fighting us. They're still coming over the passes. They're still coming into Zabul, to Kunar, to all of these areas, but we are sending fewer people to the front to fight them. And that's...[ crosstalk ] BIDEN:  That's right, because that's the Afghan responsibility. We've trained them. RYAN:  Not in the east. RADDATZ:  Let's move — let's move to another war. BIDEN:  Not in the east? RYAN:  R.C. East — R.C. East... BIDEN:  R.C. East is the most dangerous place in the world. RYAN:  That's right. That's why we don't want to send fewer people to the... BIDEN:  That's — that's why we should send Americans in to do the job, instead of the — you'd rather Americans be going in doing the job instead of the trainees? RYAN:  No. We are already sending Americans to do the job, but fewer of them. That's the whole problem. BIDEN:  That's right. We're sending in more Afghans to do the job, Afghans to do the job. RADDATZ:  Let's move to another war, the civil war in Syria, where there are estimates that more — estimates that more than 25,000, 30,000 people have now been killed. In March of last year, President Obama explained the military action taken in Libya by saying it was in the national interest to go in and prevent further massacres from occurring there. So why doesn't the same logic apply in Syria? Vice President Biden? BIDEN:  Different country. It's a different country. It is five times as large geographically, it has one-fifth the population, that is Libya, one-fifth the population, five times as large geographically. It's in a part of the world where they're not going to see whatever would come from that war. It seep into a regional war. You're in a country that is heavily populated in the midst of the most dangerous area in the world. And, in fact, if in fact it blows up and the wrong people gain control, it's going to have impact on the entire region causing potentially regional wars. We are working hand and glove with the Turks, with the Jordanians, with the Saudis, and with all the people in the region attempting to identify the people who deserve the help so that when Assad goes — and he will go — there will be a legitimate government that follows on, not an Al Qaida-sponsored government that follows on. And all this loose talk of my friend, Governor Romney, and the congressman, about how we're going to do, we could do so much more in there, what more would they do other than put American boots on the ground? The last thing America needs is to get in another ground war in the Middle East, requiring tens of thousands, if not well over 100,000 American forces. That — they are the facts. They are the facts. Now, every time the governor is asked about this, he doesn't say anything. He — he goes up with a whole lot of verbiage, but when he gets pressed he says, no, he would not do anything different than we are doing now. Are they proposing putting American troops on the ground? Putting American aircraft in the airspace? Is that what they're proposing? If they do, they should speak up and say so, but that's not what they're saying. We are doing it exactly like we need to do to identify those forces who, in fact, will provide for a stable government and not cause a regional Sunni-Shia war when Bassad — when Bashar Assad falls. RADDATZ:  Congressman Ryan? RYAN:  Nobody is proposing to send troops to Syria. American troops. Now, let me say it this way. How would we do things differently? We wouldn't refer to Bashar Assad as a reformer when he's killing his own civilians with his Russian-provided weapons. We wouldn't be outsourcing our foreign policy to the United Nations giving Vladimir Putin veto power over our efforts to try and deal with this issue. He's vetoed three of them. Hillary Clinton went to Russia to try and convince them not to do so. They thwarted her efforts. She said they were on the wrong side of history. She was right about that. This is just one more example of how the Russia reset's not working. And so where are we? After international pressure mounted, the President Obama said Bashar Assad should go. It's been over a year. The man has slaughtered tens of thousands of his own people. And more foreign fighters are spilling into this country. So the longer this has gone on, the more people, groups like Al Qaida are going in. We could have more easily identified the free Syrian army, the freedom fighters, working with our allies, the Turks, the Qataris, the Saudis, had we had a better plan in place to begin with working through our allies. But, no, we waited for Kofi Annan to try and come up with an agreement through the U.N. That bought Bashar Assad time. We gave Russia veto power over our efforts through the U.N. And meanwhile about 30,000 Syrians are dead. BIDEN:  What would my friend do differently? If you notice, he never answers the question. RYAN:  No, I would — I — we would not be going through the U.N. in all of these things. BIDEN:  Let me — you don't go through the U.N. We are in the process now — and have been for months — in making sure that help, humanitarian aid, as well as other aid and training is getting to those forces that we believe, the Turks believe, the Jordanians believe, the Saudis believe are the free forces inside of Syria. That is underway. Our allies were all on the same page, NATO, as well as our Arab allies, in terms of trying to get a settlement. That was their idea. We're the ones that said, "Enough." With regard to the reset not working, the fact of the matter is that Russia has a different interest in Syria than we do, and that's not in our interest. RADDATZ:  What happens if Assad does not fall, Congressman Ryan? What happens to the region? What happens if he hangs on? What happens if he does? RYAN:  Then Iran keeps their greatest ally in the region. He's a sponsor of terrorism. He'll probably continue slaughtering his people. We and the world community will lose our credibility on this. Look, he mentioned the reset... RADDATZ:  So what would Romney-Ryan do about that credibility? RYAN:  Well, we agree with the same red line, actually, they do on chemical weapons, but not putting American troops in, other than to secure those chemical weapons. They're right about that. But what we should have done earlier is work with those freedom fighters, those dissidents in Syria. We should not have called Bashar Assad a reformer. And... RADDATZ:  What's your criteria...[ crosstalk ] RYAN:  ... we should not have — we should not have waited to Russia... RADDATZ:  What's your criteria...[ crosstalk ] RYAN:  ... should not have waited for Russia to give us the green light at the U.N. to do something about it. BIDEN:  Russia... RYAN:  They're — they're still arming the man. Iran is flying flights over Iraq... BIDEN:  And the opposition is being armed. RYAN:  ... to help Bashar Assad. And, by the way, if we had the status-of-forces agreement that the vice president said he would bet his vice presidency on in Iraq, we probably would have been able to prevent that. But he failed to achieve that, as well, again. RADDATZ:  Let me ask you a quick question. BIDEN:  I don't... RADDATZ:  What's your criteria for intervention? BIDEN:  Yeah. RYAN:  In Syria? RADDATZ:  Worldwide. RYAN:  What is in the national interests of the American people. RADDATZ:  How about humanitarian interests? RYAN:  What is in the national security of the American people. It's got to be in the strategic national interests of our country. RADDATZ:  No humanitarian? RYAN:  Each situation will — will come up with its own set of circumstances, but putting American troops on the ground? That's got to be within the national security interests of the American people. RADDATZ:  I want to — we're — we're almost out of time here. RYAN:  That means like embargoes and sanctions and overflights, those are things that don't put American troops on the ground. But if you're talking about putting American troops on the ground, only in our national security interests. RADDATZ:  I want to move on, and I want to return home for these last few questions. This debate is, indeed, historic. We have two Catholic candidates, first time, on a stage such as this. And I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion. Please talk about how you came to that decision. Talk about how your religion played a part in that. And, please, this is such an emotional issue for so many people in this country... RYAN:  Sure. RADDATZ:  ... please talk personally about this, if you could. Congressman Ryan? RYAN:  I don't see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do. My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life. Now, you want to ask basically why I'm pro-life? It's not simply because of my Catholic faith. That's a factor, of course. But it's also because of reason and science. You know, I think about 10 1/2 years ago, my wife Janna and I went to Mercy Hospital in Janesville where I was born, for our seven week ultrasound for our firstborn child, and we saw that heartbeat. A little baby was in the shape of a bean. And to this day, we have nicknamed our firstborn child Liza, "Bean." Now I believe that life begins at conception. That's why — those are the reasons why I'm pro-life. Now I understand this is a difficult issue, and I respect people who don't agree with me on this, but the policy of a Romney administration will be to oppose abortions with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. What troubles me more is how this administration has handled all of these issues. Look at what they're doing through Obamacare with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. They're infringing upon our first freedom, the freedom of religion, by infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals. Our church should not have to sue our federal government to maintain their religious liberties. And with respect to abortion, the Democratic Party used to say they wanted it to be safe, legal and rare. Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding. Taxpayer funding in Obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid. The vice president himself went to China and said that he sympathized and wouldn't second guess their one child policy of forced abortions and sterilizations. That to me is pretty extreme. RADDATZ:  Vice President Biden? BIDEN:  My religion defines who I am, and I've been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can't take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to — with regard to abortion, I accept my church's position on abortion as a — what we call a [ inaudible ] doctrine. Life begins at conception in the church's judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the — the congressman. I — I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that — women they can't control their body. It's a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I'm not going to interfere with that. With regard to the assault on the Catholic church, let me make it absolutely clear, no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy Hospital, any hospital, none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact. That is a fact. Now with regard to the way in which the — we differ, my friend says that he — well I guess he accepts Governor Romney's position now, because in the past he has argued that there was — there's rape and forcible rape. He's argued that in the case of rape or incest, it was still — it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion. I just fundamentally disagree with my friend. RADDATZ:  Congressman Ryan. RYAN:  All I'm saying is, if you believe that life begins at conception, that, therefore, doesn't change the definition of life. That's a principle. The policy of a Romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. Now, I've got to take issue with the Catholic church and religious liberty. BIDEN:  You have on the issue... [ crosstalk ] RYAN:  ... why would they keep — why would they keep suing you? It's a distinction without a difference. RADDATZ:  I want to go back to the abortion question here. If the Romney-Ryan ticket is elected, should those who believe that abortion should remain legal be worried? RYAN:  We don't think that unelected judges should make this decision; that people through their elected representatives in reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process should make this determination. BIDEN:  The court — the next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees. That's how close Roe v. Wade is. Just ask yourself, with Robert Bork being the chief adviser on the court for — for Mr. Romney, who do you think he's likely to appoint? Do you think he's likely to appoint someone like Scalia or someone else on the court far right that would outlaw [ inaudible ] — outlaw abortion? I suspect that would happen. I guarantee you, that will not happen. We picked two people. We pick people who are open-minded. They've been good justices. So keep an eye on the Supreme Court... RYAN:  Was there a litmus test on them? BIDEN:  There was no litmus test. We picked people who had an open mind; did not come with an agenda. RADDATZ:  I'm — I'm going to move on to this closing question because we are running out of time. Certainly [ inaudible ] and you've said it here tonight, that the two of you respect our troops enormously. Your son has served and perhaps someday your children will serve as well. I recently spoke to a highly decorated soldier who said that this presidential campaign has left him dismayed. He told me, quote, "the ads are so negative and they are all tearing down each other rather than building up the country." What would you say to that American hero about this campaign? And at the end of the day, are you ever embarrassed by the tone? Vice President Biden? BIDEN:  I would say to him the same thing I say to my son who did serve a year in Iraq, that we only have one truly sacred obligation as a government. That's to equip those we send into harm's way and care for those who come home. That's the only sacred obligation we have. Everything else falls behind that. I would also tell him that the fact that he, this decorated soldier you talked about, fought for his country, that that should be honored. He should not be thrown into a category of a 47 percent who don't pay their taxes while he was out there fighting and not having to pay taxes, and somehow not taking responsibility. I would also tell him that there are things that have occurred in this campaign and occur in every campaign that I'm sure both of us regret anyone having said, particularly in these — these special new groups that can go out there, raise all the money they want, not have to identify themselves, who say the most scurrilous things about the other candidate. It's — it's an abomination. But the bottom line here is I'd ask that hero you referenced to take a look at whether or not Governor Romney or President Obama has the conviction to help lift up the middle class, restore them to where they were before this great recession hit and they got wiped out. Or whether or not he's going to continue to focus on taking care of only the very wealthy, not asking them to make — pay any part of the deal to bring — bring back the middle class and the economy of this country. I'd ask him to take a look at whether the president of the United States has acted wisely in the use of force and whether or not the slipshod comments being made by my — my — or by Governor Romney serve — serve our interests very well. But there are things that have been said in campaigns that I — I find not very appealing. RADDATZ:  Congressman Ryan? RYAN:  First of all, I'd thank him to his service to our country. Second of all, I'd say we are not going to impose these devastating cuts on our military which compromises their mission and their safety. And then I would say, you have a president who ran for president four years ago promising hope and change, who has now turned his campaign into attack, blame and defame. You see, if you don't have a good record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone to run from. That was what President Obama said in 2008. It's what he's doing right now. Look at all the string of broken promises. If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. Try telling that to the 20 million people who are projected to lose their health insurance if Obamacare goes through or the 7-point million — 7.4 million seniors who are going to lose it. Or remember when he said this: I guarantee if you make less than $250,000, your taxes won't go up. Of the 21 tax increases in Obamacare, 12 of them hit the middle class. Or remember when he said health insurance premiums will go down $2,500 per family, per year? They've gone up $3,000, and they're expected to go up another $2,400. Or remember when he said, "I promise by the end of my first term I'll cut the deficit in half in four years"? We've had four budgets, four trillion-dollar deficits. A debt crisis is coming. We can't keep spending and borrowing like this. We can't keep spending money we don't have. Leaders run to problem to fix problems. President Obama has not even put a credible plan on the table in any of his four years to deal with this debt crisis. I passed two budgets to deal with this. Mitt Romney's put ideas on the table. We've got to tackle this debt crisis before it tackles us. The president likes to say he has a plan. He gave a speech. We asked his budget office, "Can we see the plan?" They sent us to the press secretary. He gave us a copy of the speech. We asked the Congressional Budget Office, "Tell us what President Obama's plan is to prevent a debt crisis." They said, "It's a speech, we can't estimate speeches." You see, that's what we get in this administration — speeches — but we're not getting leadership. Mitt Romney is uniquely qualified to fix these problems. His lifetime of experience, his proven track record of bipartisanship. And what do we have from the president? He broke his big promise to bring people together to solve the country's biggest problems. And what I would tell him is we don't have to settle for this. BIDEN:  Martha? RYAN:  We can do better than this. BIDEN:  I hope I'll get equal time. RADDATZ:  You will get just a few minutes here. A few seconds, really. BIDEN:  The two budgets the congressman introduced have eviscerated all the things that the middle class cares about. It is [ inaudible ] he will knock 19 million people off of Medicare. It will kick 200,000 children off of early education. It will eliminate the tax credit people have to be able to send their children to college. It cuts education by $450 billion. It does — it does virtually nothing except continue to increase the tax cuts for the very wealthy. And, you know, we've had enough of this. The idea that he's so concerned about these deficits, I've pointed out he voted to put two wars on a credit card. He did... RADDATZ:  We're going to — we're going to the closing statements in a minute. [ crosstalk ] You're going to have your closing statement. RYAN:  Not raising taxes is not cutting taxes. And by the way, our budget... BIDEN:  We have not raised...[ crosstalk ] RYAN:  ... by 3 percent a year instead of 4.5 percent like they propose. Not spending more money as much as they say is not a spending cut. RADDATZ:  Let me — let me calm down things here just for a minute. And I want to talk to you very briefly before we go to closing statements about your own personal character. If you are elected, what could you both give to this country as a man, as a human being, that no one else could? RYAN:  Honesty, no one else could? There are plenty of fine people who could lead this country. But what you need are people who, when they say they're going to do something, they go do it. What you need are, when people see problems, they offer solutions to fix those problems. We're not getting that. Look, we can grow this economy faster. That's what our five- point plan for a stronger middle class is all about. It's about getting 12 million jobs, higher take-home pay, getting people out of poverty into the middle class. That means going with proven, pro- growth policies that we know works to get people back to work. Putting ideas on the table, working with Democrats — that actually works sometimes — and then...[ crosstalk ] RADDATZ:  Vice President, can we get to that — to that issue of what you could bring as a man, a human being? And I really — I'm going to keep you to about 15 seconds here. BIDEN:  Well, he gets 40, I get 15, that's OK. RADDATZ:  He didn't have 40. He didn't have 40. BIDEN:  That's all right. Let me tell you. I — my — my record stands for itself. I never say anything I don't mean. Everybody knows, whatever I say, I do. And my whole life has been devoted to leveling the playing field for middle-class people, giving them an even break, treating Main Street and Wall Street the same, hold them to the same responsibility. Look at my record. It's been all about the middle class. They're the people who grow this country. We think you grow this country from the middle out, not from the top down. RADDATZ:  OK, we now turn to the candidates for their closing statements. Thank you, gentlemen. And that coin toss, again, has Vice President Biden starting with the closing statement. BIDEN:  Well, let — let me say at the outset that I want to thank you, Martha, for doing this, and Centre College. The fact is that we're in a situation where we inherited a god-awful circumstance. People are in real trouble. We acted to move to bring relief to the people who need the most help now. And — and in the process, we — in case you haven't noticed, we have strong disagreements, but I — you probably detected my frustration with their attitude about the American people. My friend says that 30 percent of the American people are takers. Romney points out 47 percent of the people won't take responsibility. He's talking about my mother and father. He's talking about the places I grew up in, my neighbors in Scranton and Claymont, and he's talking about — he's talking about the people that have built this country. All they're looking for, Martha, all they're looking for is an even shot. Whenever you give them the shot, they've done it. They've done it. Whenever you've leveled the playing field, they've been able to move. And they want a little bit of peace of mind. And the president and I are not going to rest until that playing field is leveled, they, in fact, have a clear shot, and they have peace of mind, until they can turn to their kid and say with a degree of confidence, "Honey, it's going to be OK. It's going to be OK." That's what this is all about. RADDATZ:  Congressman Ryan? RYAN:  I want to thank you, as well, Martha, Danville, Kentucky, Centre College, and I want to thank you, Joe. It's been an honor to engage in this critical debate. We face a very big choice. What kind of country are we going to be? What kind of country are we going to give our kids? President Obama, he had his chance. He made his choices. His economic agenda, more spending, more borrowing, higher taxes, a government takeover of health care. It's not working. It's failed to create the jobs we need. Twenty-three million Americans are struggling for work today. Fifteen percent of Americans are in poverty. This is not what a real recovery looks like. You deserve better. Mitt Romney and I want to earn your support. We're offering real reforms for a real recovery for every American. Mitt Romney — his experience, his ideas, his solutions — is uniquely qualified to get this job done. At a time when we have a jobs crisis in America, wouldn't it be nice to have a job-creator in the White House? The choice is clear: a stagnant economy that promotes more government dependency or a dynamic, growing economy that promotes opportunity and jobs. Mitt Romney and I will not duck the tough issues, and we will not blame others for the next four years. We will take responsibility. And we will not try to replace our founding principles. We will reapply our founding principles. The choice is clear, and the choice rests with you. And we ask you for your vote. Thank you. RADDATZ:  And thank you both again. Thank you very much. BIDEN:  Thank you. RADDATZ:  This concludes the vice presidential debate. Please tune in next Tuesday for the second presidential debate at Hofstra University in New York. I'm Martha Raddatz of ABC News. I do hope all of you go to the polls. Have a good evening. [ applause ] Source: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/vice-presidential-debate-centre-college-danville-kentucky

October 22, 2012   Moderator Bob Schieffer.  Good evening from the campus of Lynn University here in Boca Raton, Florida. This is the fourth and last debate of the 2012 campaign, brought to you by the Commission on Presidential Debates. This one is on foreign policy. I'm Bob Schieffer of CBS News. The questions are mine, and I have not shared them with the candidates or their aides. The audience has taken a vow of silence: no applause, no reaction of any kind, except right now, when we welcome President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. They've asked me to divide the evening into segments. I'll pose a question at the beginning of each segment. You'll each have 2 minutes to respond, and then, we will have a general discussion until we move to the next segment. Tonight's debate, as both of you know, comes on the 50th anniversary of the night that President Kennedy told the world that the Soviet Union had installed nuclear missiles in Cuba, perhaps the closest we've ever come to nuclear war. And it is a sobering reminder that every President faces, at some point, an unexpected threat to our national security from abroad. So let's begin. Situation in the Middle East and North Africa/Al Qaida Terrorist Organization The first segment is the challenge of a changing Middle East and the new face of terrorism. I'm going to put this into two segments, so you'll have two topic questions within this one segment on that subject. The first question, and it concerns Libya. The controversy over what happened there continues. Four Americans are dead, including an American Ambassador. Questions remain of what happened: What caused it? Was it spontaneous? Was it an intelligence failure? Was it a policy failure? Was there an attempt to mislead people about what really happened? Governor Romney, you said this was an example of an American policy in the Middle East that is unraveling before our very eyes. I'd like to hear each of you give your thoughts on that. Governor Romney, you won the toss; you go first. Republican Presidential Nominee W. Mitt Romney.  Thank you, Bob. And thank you for agreeing to moderate this debate this evening. Thank you to Lynn University for welcoming us here. And, Mr. President, it's good to be with you again. We were together at a humorous event a little earlier, and it's nice to maybe be funny this time, not on purpose. We'll see what happens. This is obviously an area of great concern to the entire world and to America in particular, which is to see a complete change in the structure and the environment in the Middle East. With the Arab Spring came a great deal of hope that there would be a change towards more moderation, an opportunity for greater participation on the part of women in public life and in economic life in the Middle East. But instead, we've seen in nation after nation a number of disturbing events. Of course, we see in Syria 30,000 civilians having been killed by the military there. We see in Libya, an attack, apparently by—I think we know now—by terrorists of some kind against our people there, four people dead. Our hearts and minds go to them. Mali has been taken over—the northern part of Mali—by Al Qaida-type individuals. We have in Egypt a Muslim Brotherhood President. And so what we're seeing is a pretty dramatic reversal in the kind of hopes we had for that region. Of course, the greatest threat of all is Iran, 4 years closer to a nuclear weapon. And we're going to have to recognize that we have to do as the President has done; I congratulate him on taking out Usama bin Laden and going after the leadership in Al Qaida. But we can't kill our way out of this mess. We're going to have to put in place a very comprehensive and robust strategy to help the world of Islam and other parts of the world reject this radical, violent extremism, which is—it's certainly not on the run. It's certainly not hiding. This is a group that is now involved in 10 or 12 countries. And it presents an enormous threat to our friends, to the world, to America long term, and we must have a comprehensive strategy to help reject this kind of extremism. Mr. Schieffer. Mr. President. Counterterrorism Efforts/Libya The President.  Well, my first job as Commander in Chief, Bob, is to keep the American people safe. And that's what we've done over the last 4 years. We ended the war in Iraq, refocused our attention on those who actually killed us on 9/11. And as a consequence, Al Qaida's core leadership has been decimated. In addition, we're now able to transition out of Afghanistan in a responsible way, making sure that Afghans take responsibility for their own security. And that allows us also to rebuild alliances and make friends around the world to combat future threats. Now, with respect to Libya, as I indicated in the last debate, when we received that phone call, I immediately made sure that, number one, we did everything we could to secure those Americans who were still in harm's way; number two, that we would investigate exactly what happened; and number three, most importantly, that we would go after those who killed Americans and we would bring them to justice. And that's exactly what we're going to do. But I think it's important to step back and think about what happened in Libya. Now, keep in mind that I and Americans took leadership in organizing an international coalition that made sure that we were able to—without putting troops on the ground, at the cost of less than what we spent in 2 weeks in Iraq—liberate a country that had been under the yoke of dictatorship for 40 years, got rid of a despot who had killed Americans. And as a consequence, despite this tragedy, you had tens of thousands of Libyans, after the events in Benghazi, marching and saying: America is our friend. We stand with them. Now, that represents the opportunity we have to take advantage of. And, Governor Romney, I'm glad that you agree that we have been successful in going after Al Qaida, but I have to tell you that your strategy previously has been one that has been all over the map and is not designed to keep Americans safe or to build on the opportunities that exist in the Middle East. Counterterrorism Efforts/Situation in the Middle East and North Africa Gov. Romney. Well, my strategy is pretty straightforward, which is to go after the bad guys, to make sure we do our very best to interrupt them, to kill them, to take them out of the picture. But my strategy is broader than that. That's important, of course. But the key that we're going to have to pursue is a pathway to get the Muslim world to be able to reject extremism on its own. We don't want another Iraq. We don't want another Afghanistan. That's not the right course for us. The right course for us is to make sure that we go after the people who are leaders of these various anti-American groups and these jihadists, but also help the Muslim world. And how do we do that? The group of Arab scholars came together, organized by the U.N., to look at how we can help the world reject these terrorists. And the answer they came up with was this: one, more economic development. We should key our foreign aid, our direct foreign investment—and that of our friends, we should coordinate it—to make sure that we push back and give them more economic development. Number two, better education. Number three, gender equality. Number four, the rule of law. We have to help these nations create civil societies. But what's been happening over the last couple of years is, as we've watched this tumult in the Middle East, this rising tide of chaos occur, you see Al Qaida rushing in. You see other jihadist groups rushing in. And they're throughout many nations in the Middle East. It's wonderful that Libya seems to be making some progress, despite this terrible tragedy. But next door, of course, we have Egypt; Libya is 6 million population, Egypt 80 million population. We want to make sure that we're seeing progress throughout the Middle East, with Mali now having North Mali taken over by Al Qaida, with Syria having Asad continuing to assassinate, to kill, to murder his own people. This is a region in tumult. Mr. Schieffer.  Well, let's see what the—— Gov. Romney.  And of course, Iran on the path to a nuclear weapon. We've got real problems in the region. Mr. Schieffer. We'll get to that. But let's give the President a chance. Governor Romney's Foreign Policy Agenda The President.  Governor Romney, I'm glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago, when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia. Not Al Qaida, you said Russia. And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the cold war has been over for 20 years. But, Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s, and the economic policies of the 1920s. You say that you're not interested in duplicating what happened in Iraq, but just a few weeks ago, you said you think we should have more troops in Iraq right now. And the challenge we have—I know you haven't been in a position to actually execute foreign policy, but every time you've offered an opinion, you've been wrong. You said we should have gone into Iraq, despite the fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction. You said that we should still have troops in Iraq to this day. You indicated that we shouldn't be passing nuclear treaties with Russia, despite the fact that 71 Senators—Democrats and Republicans—voted for it. You've said that, first, we should not have a timeline in Afghanistan; then, you said we should; now you say maybe or it depends, which means not only were you wrong, but you were also confusing and sending mixed messages both to our troops and our allies. So what we need to do with respect to the Middle East is strong, steady leadership, not wrong and reckless leadership that is all over the map. And unfortunately, that's the kinds of opinions that you've offered throughout this campaign, and it is not a recipe for American strength or keeping America safe over the long term. Mr. Schieffer. I'm going to add a couple of minutes here to give you a chance to respond. Situation in the Middle East/Russia/Iraq Gov. Romney. Well, of course, I don't concur with what the President said about my own record and the things that I've said. They don't happen to be accurate. But I can say this: that we're talking about the Middle East and how to help the Middle East reject the kind of terrorism we're seeing and the rising tide of tumult and confusion. And attacking me is not an agenda. Attacking me is not talking about how we're going to deal with the challenges that exist in the Middle East and take advantage of the opportunity there and stem the tide of this violence. But I'll respond to a couple of the things you mentioned. First of all, Russia, I indicated, is a geopolitical foe, not a—— The President.  Number-one geopolitical foe. Gov. Romney. Excuse me. It's a geopolitical foe, and I said in the same paragraph, I said, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I'm not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin. And I'm certainly not going to say to him, I'll give you more flexibility after the election. After the election, he'll get more backbone. Number two, with regards to Iraq, you and I agreed, I believe, that there should have been a status of forces agreement. Did you—— The President.  That's not true. Gov. Romney. Oh, you didn't? You didn't want a status of forces agreement? The President.  No, what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East. Gov. Romney. I'm sorry. You actually—there was an effort on the part of the President—— The President.  Here is—— Gov. Romney. ——to have a status of forces agreement—— The President.  Here is—— Gov. Romney. And I concurred in that and said that we should have some number of troops that stayed on. That was something I concurred with. The President.  Governor—— Gov. Romney. That was your posture. That was my posture as well. You thought it should have been 5,000 troops. The President.  Governor—— Gov. Romney. I thought it should have been more troops. But you know what, the answer was—— The President.  This is just a few weeks ago. Gov. Romney. ——we got no troops through whatsoever. The President.  This is just a few weeks ago that you indicated that we should still have troops in Iraq. Gov. Romney. No, I didn't. I'm sorry, that's—— The President.  You made a major speech. Gov. Romney. I indicated that you failed to put in place a status of forces agreement—— The President.  Governor—— Gov. Romney. ——at the end of the conflict that existed in Iraq. The President.  Governor, here's one thing—— Mr. Schieffer. You know what, let him answer, please. The President's Foreign Policy Agenda The President. Here's one thing I've learned as Commander in Chief. You've got to be clear both to our allies and our enemies about where you stand and what you mean. Now, you just gave a speech a few weeks ago in which you said we should still have troops in Iraq. That is not a recipe for making sure that we are taking advantage of the opportunities and meeting the challenges of the Middle East. Now, it is absolutely true that we cannot just beat these challenges militarily. And so what I've done—throughout my Presidency and will continue to do—is, number one, make sure that these countries are supporting our counterterrorism efforts. Number two, make sure that they are standing by our interests in Israel's security, because it is a true friend and our greatest ally in the region. Number three, we do have to make sure that we're protecting religious minorities and women because these countries can't develop unless all the population—not just half of it—is developing. Number four, we do have to develop their economic capabilities. But number five, the other thing that we have to do is recognize that we can't continue to do nation-building in these regions. Part of American leadership is making sure that we're doing nation-building here at home. Mr. Schieffer. All right. The President. That will help us maintain the kind of American leadership that we need. Syria Mr. Schieffer. Let me interject the second topic question in this segment about the Middle East and so on. And that is, you both mentioned—alluded to this, and that is Syria. The war in Syria has now spilled over into Lebanon. We have, what, more than a hundred people that were killed there in a bomb. There were demonstrations there, eight people dead. Mr. President, it's been more than a year since you saw—you told Asad he had to go. Since then, 30,000 Syrians have died. We've had 300,000 refugees. The war goes on; he's still there. Should we reassess our policy and see if we can find a better way to influence events there? Or is that even possible? And it's you—you go first, sir. The President. What we've done is organize the international community, saying Asad has to go. We've mobilized sanctions against that Government. We have made sure that they are isolated. We have provided humanitarian assistance, and we are helping the opposition organize. And we're particularly interested in making sure that we're mobilizing the moderate forces inside of Syria. But ultimately, Syrians are going to have to determine their own future. And so everything we're doing, we're doing in consultation with our partners in the region, including Israel, which obviously has a huge interest in seeing what happens in Syria, coordinating with Turkey and other countries in the region that have a great interest in this. Now, what we're seeing taking place in Syria is heartbreaking. And that's why we are going to do everything we can to make sure that we are helping the opposition. But we also have to recognize that for us to get more entangled militarily in Syria is a serious step. And we have to do so making absolutely certain that we know who we are helping, that we're not putting arms in the hands of folks who eventually could turn them against us or our allies in the region. And I am confident that Asad's days are numbered. But what we can't do is to simply suggest that, as Governor Romney at times has suggested, that giving heavy weapons, for example, to the Syrian opposition is a simple proposition that would lead us to be safer over the long term. Mr. Schieffer. Governor. Gov. Romney. Well, let's step back and talk about what's happening in Syria and how important it is. First of all, 30,000 people being killed by their Government is a humanitarian disaster. Secondly, Syria is an opportunity for us because Syria plays an important role in the Middle East, particularly right now. Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea. It's the route for them to arm Hizballah in Lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally, Israel. And so seeing Syria remove Asad is a very high priority for us. Number two, seeing a replacement Government being responsible people is critical for us. And finally, we don't want to have military involvement there. We don't want to get drawn in to a military conflict. And so the right course for us is working through our partners and with our own resources to identify responsible parties within Syria, organize them, bring them together in a form of, if not government, a form of council that can take the lead in Syria, and then make sure they have the arms necessary to defend themselves. We do need to make sure that they don't have arms that get into the wrong hands, that those arms could be used to hurt us down the road. We need to make sure as well that we coordinate this effort with our allies and particularly with Israel. But the Saudis and the Qatari and the Turks are all very concerned about this. They're willing to work with us. We need to have a very effective leadership effort in Syria, making sure that the insurgents there are armed and that the insurgents that become armed are people who will be the responsible parties. Recognize, I believe that Asad must go. I believe he will go. But I believe we want to make sure that we have the relationships of friendship with the people that take his place such that in the years to come, we see Syria as a friend and Syria as a responsible party in the Middle East. This is a critical opportunity for America. And what I'm afraid of is, what we've watched over the past year or so, first, the President saying, well, we'll let the U.N. deal with it, and Asad—excuse me, Kofi Annan came in and said we're going to try to have a cease-fire. That didn't work. Then it looked to the Russians and said, let's see if you can do something. We should be playing the leadership role there, not on the ground with military, but play the leadership role. Mr. Schieffer. All right. Syria/Libya The President. Bob, we are playing the leadership role. We organized the Friends of Syria. We are mobilizing humanitarian support and support for the opposition. And we are making sure that those we help are those who will be friends of ours in the long term and friends of our allies in the region over the long term. But going back to Libya, because this is an example of how we make choices: When we went into Libya, and we were able to immediately stop the massacre there because of the unique circumstances and the coalition that we had helped to organize, we also had to make sure that Muammar Qaddafi didn't stay there. And to the Governor's credit, you supported us going into Libya and the coalition that we organized. But when it came time to making sure that Qaddafi did not stay in power, that he was captured, Governor, your suggestion was that this was mission creep, that this was mission muddle. Imagine if we had pulled out at that point. Muammar Qaddafi had more American blood on his hands than any individual other than Usama bin Laden, and so we were going to make sure that we finished the job. That's part of the reason why the Libyans stand with us. But we did so in a careful, thoughtful way, making certain that we knew who we were dealing with, that those forces of moderation on the ground were ones that we could work with. And we have to take the same kind of steady, thoughtful leadership when it comes to Syria. That's exactly what we're doing. Syria Mr. Schieffer. Governor, can I just ask you, would you go beyond what the administration would do? Like, for example, would you put in no-fly zones over Syria? Gov. Romney. I don't want to have our military involved in Syria. I don't think there's a necessity to put our military in Syria at this stage. I don't anticipate that in the future. As I indicated, our objectives are to replace Asad and to have in place a new Government, which is friendly to us, a responsible Government, if possible. And I want to make sure they get armed and they have the arms necessary to defend themselves, but also to remove Asad. But I do not want to see a military involvement on the part of our troops. And this isn't going to be necessary. We have—with our partners in the region, we have sufficient resources to support those groups. But look, this has been going on for a year. This is a time—this should have been a time for American leadership. We should have taken a leading role—not militarily, but a leading role organizationally, governmentally—to bring together the parties there, to find responsible parties. As you hear from intelligence sources even today, the insurgents are highly disparate; they haven't come together; they haven't formed a unity group, a council of some kind. That needs to happen. America can help that happen. And we need to make sure they have the arms they need to carry out the very important role, which is getting rid of Asad. Mr. Schieffer. Could we get a quick response, Mr. President? Because I want to ask about Egypt. The President. I'll be very quick. What you just heard Governor Romney said is he doesn't have different ideas, and that's because we're doing exactly what we should be doing to try to promote a moderate Syrian leadership and an effective transition so that we get Asad out. That's the kind of leadership we've shown. That's the kind of leadership we'll continue to show. Arab Spring/Egypt/National Economy Mr. Schieffer. May I ask you, during the Egyptian turmoil, there came a point when you said it was time for President Mubarak to go. The President. Right. Mr. Schieffer. Some in your administration thought perhaps we should have waited a while on that. Do you have any regrets about that? The President. No, I don't, because I think that America has to stand with democracy. The notion that we would have tanks run over those young people who were in Tahrir Square, that is not the kind of American leadership that John F. Kennedy talked about 50 years ago. But what I've also said is that now that you have a democratically elected Government in Egypt, that they have to make sure that they take responsibility for protecting religious minorities—and we have put significant pressure on them to make sure they're doing that—to recognize the rights of women, which is critical throughout the region. These countries can't develop if young women are not given the kind of education that they need. They have to abide by their treaty with Israel. That is a red line for us, because not only is Israel's security at stake, but our security is at stake if that unravels. They have to make sure that they're cooperating with us when it comes to counterterrorism. And we will help them with respect to developing their own economy, because ultimately, what's going to make the Egyptian revolution successful for the people of Egypt, but also for the world is if those young people who gathered there are seeing opportunities. Their aspirations are similar to young people's here. They want jobs. They want to be able to make sure their kids are going to a good school. They want to make sure that they have a roof over their heads and that they have the prospects of a better life in the future. And so one of the things that we've been doing is, for example, organizing entrepreneurship conferences with these Egyptians to give them a sense of how they can start rebuilding their economy in a way that's noncorrupt, that's transparent. But what is also important for us to understand is, is that for America to be successful in this region, there are some things that we're going to have to do here at home as well. One of the challenges over the last decade is we've done experiments in nation-building in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, and we've neglected, for example, developing our own economy, our own energy sectors, our own education system. And it's very hard for us to project leadership around the world when we're not doing what we need to do here. Arab Spring/National Economy/U.S. Global Influence Mr. Schieffer. Governor Romney, I want to hear your response to that. But I would just ask you, would you have stuck with Mubarak? Gov. Romney. No. I believe as the President indicated and said at the time that I supported his action there. I felt that—I wish we'd have had a better vision of the future. I wish that, looking back at the beginning of the President's term and even further back than that, that we'd have recognized that there was a growing energy and passion for freedom in that part of the world and that we would have worked more aggressively with our friend and with other friends in the region to have them make the transition towards a more representative form of government, such that it didn't explode in the way it did. But once it exploded, I felt the same as the President did, which is, these freedom voices in the streets of Egypt were the people who were speaking of our principles. And President Mubarak had done things which were unimaginable, and the idea of him crushing his people was not something that we could possibly support. Let me step back and talk about what I think our mission has to be in the Middle East and even more broadly, because our purpose is to make sure the world is more—is peaceful. We want a peaceful planet. We want people to be able to enjoy their lives and know they're going to have a bright and prosperous future and not be at war. That's our purpose. And the mantle of leadership for the promoting the principles of peace has fallen to America. We didn't ask for it, but it's an honor that we have it. But for us to be able to promote those principles of peace requires us to be strong, and that begins with a strong economy here at home. And unfortunately, the economy is not stronger. When the President of Iraq—excuse me, of Iran, Ahmadi-nejad, says that our debt makes us not a great country, that's a frightening thing. The former chief of staff—chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that—Admiral Mullen—said that our debt is the biggest national security threat we face. This—we have weakened our economy. We need a strong economy. We need to have, as well, a strong military. Our military is second to none in the world. We're blessed with terrific soldiers and extraordinary technology and intelligence. But the idea of a trillion dollars in cuts through sequestration and budget cuts to the military would change that. We need to have strong allies. Our association and connection with our allies is essential to America's strength. We're the great nation that has allies: 42 allies and friends around the world. And finally we have to stand by our principles. And if we're strong in each of those things, American influence will grow. But unfortunately, in nowhere in the world is America's influence greater today than it was 4 years ago. Mr. Schieffer. All right. Gov. Romney. And that's because we've become weaker—— The President. Bob, I think—— Gov. Romney. ——on each of those four dimensions. Governor Romney's Foreign Policy Agenda/National Economy/U.S. Armed Forces Mr. Schieffer. You're going to get a chance to respond to that because that's a perfect segue into our next segment, and that is, what is America's role in the world? And that is the question: What do each of you see as our role in the world? And I believe, Governor Romney, it's your turn to go first. Gov. Romney. Well, I absolutely believe that America has a responsibility and the privilege of helping defend freedom and promote the principles that make the world more peaceful, and those principles include human rights, human dignity, free enterprise, freedom of expression, elections, because when there are elections, people tend to vote for peace. They don't vote for war. So we want to promote those principles around the world. We recognize that there are places of conflict in the world. We want to end those conflicts to the extent humanly possible. But in order to be able to fulfill our role in the world, America must be strong. America must lead. And for that to happen, we have to strengthen our economy here at home. You can't have 23 million people struggling to get a job. You can't have an economy that, over the last 3 years, keeps slowing down in its growth rate. You can't have kids coming out of college, half of whom can't find a job today or a job that's commensurate with their college degree. We have to get our economy going. And our military: We've got to strengthen our military long term. We don't know what the world is going to throw at us down the road. We make decisions today in a military that will confront challenges we can't imagine. In the 2000 debates, there was no mention of terrorism, for instance. And a year later, 9/11 happened. So we have to make decisions based upon uncertainty, and that means a strong military. I will not cut our military budget. We have to also stand by our allies. I think the tension that existed between Israel and the United States was very unfortunate. I think also that pulling our missile defense program out of Poland in the way we did was also unfortunate in terms of, if you will, disrupting the relationship in some ways that existed between us. And then of course, with regards to standing for our principles, when the students took the streets in Tehran and the people there protested, the Green Revolution occurred. For the President to be silent, I thought was an enormous mistake. We have to stand for our principles, stand for our allies, stand for a strong military and stand for a stronger economy. Mr. Schieffer. Mr. President. The President's Foreign Policy Agenda/National Economy The President. America remains the one indispensible nation. And the world needs a strong America, and it is stronger now than when I came into office. Because we ended the war in Iraq, we were able to refocus our attention on not only the terrorist threat, but also beginning a transition process in Afghanistan. It also allowed us to refocus on alliances and relationships that had been neglected for a decade. And, Governor Romney, our alliances have never been stronger: in Asia, in Europe, in Africa, with Israel, where we have unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation, including dealing with the Iranian threat. But what we also have been able to do is position ourselves so we can start rebuilding America. And that's what my plan does: making sure that we're bringing manufacturing back to our shores so that we're creating jobs here, as we've done with the auto industry, not rewarding companies that are shipping jobs overseas; making sure that we've got the best education system in the world, including retraining our workers for the jobs of tomorrow. Doing everything we can to control our own energy. We've cut our oil imports to the lowest level in two decades because we've developed oil and natural gas, but we also have to develop clean energy technologies that will allow us to cut our exports in half by 2020. That's the kind of leadership that we need to show. And we've got to make sure that we reduce our deficit. Unfortunately, Governor Romney's plan doesn't do it. We've got to do it in a responsible way by cutting out spending we don't need, but also by asking the wealthiest to pay a little bit more. That way we can invest in the research and technology that's always kept us at the cutting edge. Now, Governor Romney has taken a different approach throughout this campaign. Both at home and abroad, he has proposed wrong and reckless policies. He's praised George Bush as a good economic steward and Dick Cheney as somebody who has—shows great wisdom and judgment. And taking us back to those kinds of strategies that got us into this mess are not the way that we are going to maintain leadership in the 21st century. National Economy Mr. Schieffer. Governor Romney, wrong and reckless policies? Gov. Romney. I've got a policy for the future and an agenda for the future. And when it comes to our economy here at home, I know what it takes to create 12 million new jobs and rising take-home pay. And what we've seen over the last 4 years is something I don't want to see over the next 4 years. The President said by now we'd be at 5.4-percent unemployment. We're 9 million jobs short of that. I will get America working again and see rising take-home pay again, and I'll do it with five simple steps. Number one, we are going to have North American energy independence. We're going to do it by taking full advantage of oil, coal, gas, nuclear, and our renewables. Number two, we're going to increase our trade. Trade grows about 12 percent per year. It doubles about every 5 or so years. We can do better than that, particularly in Latin America. The opportunities for us in Latin America we have just not taken advantage of fully. As a matter of fact, Latin America's economy is almost as big as the economy of China. We're all focused on China. Latin America is a huge opportunity for us: time zone, language opportunities. Number three, we're going to have to have training programs that work for our workers and schools that finally put the parents and the teachers and the kids first, and the teachers unions going to have to go behind. And then, we're going to have to get to a balanced budget. We can't expect entrepreneurs and businesses, large and small, to take their life savings or their company's money and invest in America if they think we're headed to the road to Greece. And that's where we're going right now unless we finally get off this spending and borrowing binge. And I'll get us on track to a balanced budget. And finally, number five, we've got to champion small business. Small businesses are where jobs come from. Two-thirds of our jobs come from small businesses. New business formation is down at the lowest level in 30 years under this administration. I want to bring it back and get back good jobs and rising take-home pay. Small-Business Promotion/Education The President. Well, let's talk about what we need to compete. First of all, Governor Romney talks about small businesses, but, Governor, when you were in Massachusetts, small businesses development ranked about 48th, I think, out of 50 States in Massachusetts because the policies that you're promoting actually don't help small businesses. And the way you define small businesses include folks at the very top; they include you and me. That's not the kind of small-business promotion we need. But let's take an example that we know is going to make a difference in the 21st century, and that's our education policy. We didn't have a lot of chance to talk about this in the last debate. Under my leadership, what we've done is reformed education, working with Governors, 46 States. We've seen progress and gains in schools that were having a terrible time, and they're starting to finally make progress. And what I now want to do is to hire more teachers, especially in math and science, because we know that we've fallen behind when it comes to math and science. And those teachers can make a difference. Now, Governor Romney, when you were asked by teachers whether or not this would help the economy grow, you said this isn't going to help the economy grow. When you were asked about reduced class sizes, you said class sizes don't make a difference. But I tell you, if you talk to teachers, they will tell you it does make a difference. And if we've got math teachers who are able to provide the kind of support that they need for our kids, that's what's going to determine whether or not the new businesses are created here. Companies are going to locate here depending on whether we've got the most highly skilled workforce. And the kinds of budget proposals that you've put forward, when we don't ask either you or me to pay a dime more in terms of reducing the deficit, but instead we slash support for education, that's undermining our long-term competitiveness. That is not good for America's position in the world, and the world notices. Mr. Schieffer. Let me get back to foreign policy. Gov. Romney. Well, look—— Mr. Schieffer. Can I just get back to—— Gov. Romney. Well, I need to speak a moment if you'll let me, Bob—— Mr. Schieffer. Okay. Education Gov. Romney. ——just about education, because I'm so proud of the State that I had the chance to be Governor of. We have, every 2 years, tests that look at how well our kids are doing. Fourth-graders and eighth-graders are tested in English and math. While I was Governor, I was proud that our fourth-graders came out number one of all 50 States in English and then also in math, and our eighth-graders number one in English and also in math. First time one State had been number one in all four measures. How did we do that? Well, Republicans and Democrats came together on a bipartisan basis to put in place education principles that focused on having great teachers in the classroom, and that was—— The President. Ten years earlier, Governor. Gov. Romney. ——and that was what allowed us to become the number-one State in the Nation. The President. But that was 10 years before you took office. Gov. Romney. And this is—and we were—— Mr. Schieffer. Gentlemen. Gov. Romney. Absolutely—— The President. And then you cut education spending when you came into office. Gov. Romney. The first—and we kept our schools number one in the Nation. They're still number one today. Mr. Schieffer. All right. Gov. Romney. And the principles that we put in place—we also gave kids not just a graduation exam that determined whether they were up to the skills needed to be able to compete, but also if they graduated in the top quarter of their class, they got a 4-year, tuition-free ride at any Massachusetts public institution of higher learning. The President. That happened before you came into office though. Mr. Schieffer. Governor—— Gov. Romney. That was actually mine. Actually, Mr. President, you've got that fact wrong. Deficit and National Debt Mr. Schieffer. Let me just—I want to try to shift it, because we have heard some of this in the other debates. Governor, you say you want a bigger military, you want a bigger Navy. You don't want to cut defense spending. What I want to ask you—we're talking about financial problems in this country—where are you going to get the money? Gov. Romney. Well, let's come back and talk about the military, but all the way through. First of all, I'm going through from the very beginning, we're going to cut about 5 percent of the discretionary budget, excluding military. That's number one, all right? And that's—— Mr. Schieffer. But can you do this without driving us deeper into debt? Gov. Romney. The good news is—I'll be happy to have you take a look. Come on our website; you'll look at how we get to a balanced budget within 8 to 10 years. We do it by getting—by reducing spending in a whole series of programs. By the way, number one, I get rid of is Obamacare. There are a number of things that sound good, but frankly, we just can't afford them, and that one doesn't sound good, and it's not affordable. So I get rid of that one from day one. To the extent humanly possible, we get that out. We take program after program that we don't absolutely have to have, and we get rid of them. Number two, we take some programs that we are going to keep, like Medicaid, which is a program for the poor, we take that health care program for the poor, and we give it to the States to run because States run these programs more efficiently. As a Governor, I thought, please, give me this program. I can run this more efficiently than the Federal Government. Mr. Schieffer. Can he do that, Mr. President? Gov. Romney. And States, by the way, are proving it. States like Arizona, Rhode Island have taken these Medicaid dollars, have shown they can run these programs more cost-effectively. The President. Bob—— Gov. Romney. And so I want to do those two things. It gets us to a balanced budget within 8 to 10 years. The President. Bob—— Mr. Schieffer. Let—— Gov. Romney. Let's get back to the military though. Mr. Schieffer. Well, that's what I'm trying to find out about. Deficit and National Debt The President. But he should have answered the first question. Look, Governor Romney has called for $5 trillion of tax cuts that he says he's going to pay for by closing deductions. Now, the math doesn't work, but he continues to claim that he's going to do it. He then wants to spend another $2 trillion on military spending that our military is not asking for. Now, keep in mind that our military spending has gone up every single year that I've been in office. We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined—China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, you name it—next 10. And what I did was work with our Joint Chiefs of Staff to think about what are we going to need in the future to make sure that we are safe, and that's the budget that we've put forward. But what you can't do is spend $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military is not asking for, $5 trillion on tax cuts. You say that you're going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions without naming what those loopholes and deductions are, and then somehow, you're also going to deal with the deficit that we've already got. The math simply doesn't work. But when it comes to our military, what we have to think about is not just budgets. We've got think about capabilities. We need to be thinking about cybersecurity. We need to be thinking about space. That's exactly what our budget does, but it's driven by strategy. It's not driven by politics. It's not driven by Members of Congress and what they would like to see. It's driven by what are we going to need to keep the American people safe. That's exactly what our budget does. And it also then allows us to reduce our deficit, which is a significant national security concern, because we've got to make sure that our economy is strong at home so that we can project military power overseas. Deficit and National Debt/U.S. Armed Forces/Defense Spending Gov. Romney. Bob, I'm pleased that I've balanced budgets. I was in the world of business for 25 years. You didn't balance your budget, you went out of business. I went to the Olympics that was out of balance, and we got it on balance and made a success there. I had the chance to be Governor of a State; 4 years in a row, Democrats and Republicans came together to balance the budget. We cut taxes 19 times, balanced our budget. The President hasn't balanced a budget yet. I expect to have the opportunity to do so myself. Mr. Schieffer. All right. Gov. Romney. I'm going to be able to balance the budget. Let's talk about military spending, and that's this: Our Navy—— Mr. Schieffer. About 30 seconds. Gov. Romney. Our Navy is older—excuse me, our Navy is smaller now than any time since 1917. The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission; we're now down to 285. We're headed down to the low two-hundreds if we go through with sequestration. That's unacceptable to me. I want to make sure that we have the ships that are required by our Navy. Our Air Force is older and smaller than any time since it was founded in 1947. We've changed for the first time since FDR; since FDR, we had the—we've always had the strategy of saying we could fight in two conflicts at once. Now we're changing to one conflict. Look, this, in my view, is the highest responsibility of the President of the United States, which is to maintain the safety of the American people. And I will not cut our military budget by a trillion dollars, which is the combination of the budget cuts that the President has, as well as the sequestration cuts. That, in my view, is making our future less certain and less secure—— The President. Bob, I just need to comment on this. First of all, the sequester is not something that I proposed. It's something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen. The budget that we're talking about is not reducing our military spending, it's maintaining it. But I think Governor Romney maybe hasn't spent enough time looking at how our military works. You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets—[laughter]—because the nature of our military has changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. And so the question is not a game of Battleship where we're counting ships, it's what are our capabilities. And so, when I sit down with the Secretary of the Navy and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we determine how are we going to be best able to meet all of our defense needs in a way that also keeps faith with our troops, that also makes sure that our veterans have the kind of support that they need when they come home. And that is not reflected in the kind of budget that you're putting forward, because it just doesn't work. Mr. Schieffer. All right. The President. And we visited the website quite a bit, and it still doesn't work. [Laughter] Israel/Iran Mr. Schieffer. A lot to cover. I'd like to move to the next segment: red lines, Israel, and Iran. Would either of you—and you'll have 2 minutes, and, President Obama, you have the first go at this one. Would either of you be willing to declare that an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States, which, of course, is the same promise that we give to our close allies like Japan? And if you made such a declaration, would not that deter Iran? It's certainly deterred the Soviet Union for a long, long time when we made that promise to our allies. Mr. President. The President. First of all, Israel is a true friend; it is our greatest ally in the region. And if Israel is attacked, America will stand with Israel. I've made that clear throughout my Presidency. Mr. Schieffer. So you're saying we've already made that declaration? The President. I will stand with Israel if they are attacked. And this is the reason why, working with Israel, we have created the strongest military and intelligence cooperation between our two countries in history. In fact, this week, we'll be carrying out the largest military exercise with Israel in history—this very week. But to the issue of Iran, as long as I'm President of the United States, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon. I made that clear when I came into office. We then organized the strongest coalition and the strongest sanctions against Iran in history, and it is crippling their economy. Their currency has dropped 80 percent. Their oil production has plunged to the lowest level since they were fighting a war with Iraq 20 years ago. So their economy is in a shambles. And the reason we did this is because a nuclear Iran is a threat to our national security, and it's a threat to Israel's national security. We cannot afford to have a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, and for them to be able to provide nuclear technology to nonstate actors, that's unacceptable. And they have said that they want to see Israel wiped off the map. So the work that we've done with respect to sanctions now offers Iran a choice: They can take the diplomatic route and end their nuclear program, or they will have to face a united world and a United States President—me—who said we're not going to take any options off the table. The disagreement I have with Governor Romney is that during the course of this campaign, he's often talked as if we should take premature military action. I think that would be a mistake, because when I've sent young men and women into harm's way, I always understand that that is the last resort, not the first resort. Mr. Schieffer. Two minutes. Gov. Romney. Well, first of all, I want to underscore the same point the President made, which is that if I'm President of the United States—when I'm President of the United States—we will stand with Israel. And if Israel is attacked, we have their back, not just diplomatically, not just culturally, but militarily. That's number one. Number two, with regards to Iran and the threat of Iran, there's no question but that a nuclear Iran—a nuclear-capable Iran—is unacceptable to America. It presents a threat not only to our friends, but ultimately a threat to us to have Iran have nuclear material, nuclear weapons that could be used against us or used to be threatening to us. It's also essential for us to understand what our mission is in Iran, and that is to dissuade Iran from having a nuclear weapon through peaceful and diplomatic means. And crippling sanctions are something I called for 5 years ago. When I was in Israel speaking at the Herzliya conference, I laid out seven steps. Crippling sanctions were number one, and they do work. You're seeing it right now in the economy. It's absolutely the right thing to do to have crippling sanctions. I'd have put them in place earlier, but it's good that we have them. Number two, something I would add today is I would tighten those sanctions. I would say that ships that carry Iranian oil can't come into our ports. I imagine the EU would agree with us as well. Not only ships couldn't, I'd say companies that are moving their oil can't; people who are trading in their oil can't. I would tighten those sanctions further. Secondly, I'd take on diplomatic isolation efforts. I'd make sure that Ahmadi-nejad is indicted under the genocide convention. His words amount to genocide incitation. I would indict him for it. I would also make sure that their diplomats are treated like the pariah they are around the world, the same way we treated the apartheid diplomats of South Africa. We need to increase pressure time and time again on Iran, because anything other than a solution to this which says—which stops this nuclear folly of theirs is unacceptable to America. And of course, a military action is the last resort. It is something one would only, only consider if all of the other avenues had been tried to their full extent. Iran Mr. Schieffer. Let me ask both of you, there are—as you know, there are reports that Iran and the United States, as part of an international group, have agreed in principle to talks about Iran's nuclear program. What is the deal—if there are such talks—what is the deal that you would accept? Mr. President. The President. Well, first of all, those are reports in the newspaper. They are not true. But our goal is to get Iran to recognize it needs to give up its nuclear program and abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place. Because they have the opportunity to reenter the community of nations. And we would welcome that. There are people in Iran who have the same aspirations as people all around the world for a better life. And we hope that their leadership takes the right decision. But the deal we'll accept is, they end their nuclear program. It's very straightforward. And I'm glad that Governor Romney agrees with the steps that we're taking. There have been times, Governor, frankly, during the course of this campaign where it sounded like you thought that you'd do the same things we did, but you'd say them louder, and somehow, that would make a difference. And it turns out that the work involved in setting up these crippling sanctions is painstaking. It's meticulous. We started from the day we got into office. And the reason it was so important—and this is a testament to how we've restored American credibility and strength around the world—is we had to make sure that all the countries participated, even countries like Russia and China, because if it's just us that are imposing sanctions, we've had sanctions in place for a long time. It's because we got everybody to agree that Iran is seeing so much pressure. And we've got to maintain that pressure. There is a deal to be had, and that is that they abide by the rules that have already been established, they convince the international community they are not pursuing a nuclear program, there are inspections that are very intrusive, but over time what they can do is regain credibility. In the meantime, though, we're not going to let up the pressure until we have clear evidence that that takes place. And one last thing, just to make this point: The clock is ticking. We're not going to allow Iran to perpetually engage in negotiations that lead nowhere. And I've been very clear to them. Because of the intelligence coordination that we do with a range of countries, including Israel, we have a sense of when they would get breakout capacity, which means that we would not be able to intervene in time to stop their nuclear program. And that clock is ticking. Mr. Schieffer. All right. The President. And we're going to make sure that if they do not meet the demands of the international community, then we are going to take all options necessary to make sure they don't have a nuclear weapon. Mr. Schieffer. Governor. Gov. Romney. I think from the very beginning, one of the challenges we've had with Iran is that they have looked at this administration and felt that the administration was not as strong as it needed to be. I think they saw weakness where they had expected to find American strength. And I say that because from the very beginning, the President, in his campaign some 4 years ago, said he'd meet with all the world's worst actors in his first year. He'd sit down with Chavez and Kim Jong Il, with Castro, and with President Ahmadi-nejad of Iran. And I think they looked and thought, well, that's an unusual honor to receive from the President of the United States. And then, the President began what I've called an apology tour of going to various nations in the Middle East and criticizing America. I think they looked at that and saw weakness. Then, when there were dissidents in the streets of Tehran, a Green Revolution, holding signs saying, is America with us, the President was silent. I think they noticed that as well. And I think that when the President said he was going to create daylight between ourselves and Israel, that they noticed that as well. All of these things suggested, I think, to the Iranian mullahs that, hey, we can keep on pushing along here, we can keep talks going on, but we're just going to keep on spinning centrifuges. Now there are some 10,000 centrifuges spinning uranium, preparing to create a nuclear threat to the United States and to the world. That's unacceptable for us. And it's essential for a President to show strength from the very beginning, to make it very clear what is acceptable and not acceptable. And an Iranian nuclear program is not acceptable to us. They must not develop nuclear capability. And the way to make sure they understand that is by having from the very beginning the tightest sanctions possible. They need to be tightened. Our diplomatic isolation needs to be tougher. We need to indict Ahmadi-nejad. We need to put the pressure on them as hard as we possibly can. Because if we do that, we won't have to take the military action. The President. Bob, let me just respond. Nothing Governor Romney just said is true, starting with this notion of me apologizing. This has been probably the biggest whopper that's been told during the course of this campaign. And every fact checker and every reporter who's looked at it, Governor, has said this is not true. And when it comes to tightening sanctions, look, as I said before, we've put in the toughest, most crippling sanctions ever. And the fact is, while we were coordinating an international coalition to make sure these sanctions were effective, you were still invested in a Chinese state oil company that was doing business with the Iranian oil sector. So I'll let the American people decide, judge who is going to be more effective and more credible when it comes to imposing crippling sanctions. And with respect to our attitude about the Iranian revolution, I was very clear about the murderous activities that had taken place, and that was contrary to international law and everything that civilized people stand for. And so the strength that we have shown in Iran is shown by the fact that we've been able to mobilize the world. When I came into office, the world was divided; Iran was resurgent. Iran is at its weakest point economically, strategically, militarily than since—than in many years. And we are going to continue to keep the pressure on to make sure that they do not get a nuclear weapon. That's in America's national interest, and that will be the case so long as I'm President. Iran/The President's Foreign Policy Agenda/Israel Gov. Romney. We're 4 years closer to a nuclear Iran. We're 4 years closer to a nuclear Iran. And we should not have wasted these 4 years to the extent they've continued to be able to spin these centrifuges and get that much closer. That's number one. Number two, Mr. President, the reason I call it an apology tour is because you went to the Middle East, and you flew to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and to Turkey and Iraq, and by the way, you skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region. But you went to the other nations. And by the way, they noticed that you skipped Israel. And then in those nations, and on Arabic TV, you said that America had been dismissive and derisive. You said that on occasion America has dictated to other nations. Mr. President, America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed other nations from dictators. The President. Bob, let me respond. If we're going to talk about trips that we've taken, when I was a candidate for office, the first trip I took was to visit our troops. And when I went to Israel as a candidate, I didn't take donors, I didn't attend fundraisers. I went to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum there, to remind myself the nature of evil and why our bond with Israel will be unbreakable. And then I went down to the border towns of Sderot, which had experienced missiles raining down from Hamas. And I saw families there who showed me where missiles had come down near their children's bedrooms, and I was reminded of what that would mean if those were my kids, which is why, as President, we funded an Iron Dome program to stop those missiles. So that's how I've used my travels, when I traveled to Israel and when I traveled to the region. And the central question at this point is going to be who's going to be credible to all parties involved. And they can look at my track record—whether it's Iran's sanctions, whether it's dealing with counterterrorism, whether it's supporting democracy, whether it's supporting women's rights, whether it's supporting religious minorities—and they can say that the President of the United States and the United States of America has stood on the right side of history. And that kind of credibility is precisely why we've been able to show leadership on a wide range of issues facing the world right now. Israel/The President's Foreign Policy Agenda Mr. Schieffer. What if the Prime Minister of Israel called you on the phone and said: "Our bombers are on the way. We're going to bomb Iran"? What do you say? Gov. Romney. Bob, it's not—let's not go into hypotheticals of that nature. Our relationship with Israel, my relationship with the Prime Minister of Israel, is such that we would not get a call saying our bombers are on the way or their fighters are on the way. This is the kind of thing that would have been discussed and thoroughly evaluated well before that kind of last-minute—— Mr. Schieffer. So you say it just wouldn't happen. Gov. Romney. I'm just saying that's just not—— Mr. Schieffer. Okay, well, let's see what—— Gov. Romney. But let me—— The President. The—— Gov. Romney. ——let's come back to what the President was speaking about, which is what's happening in the world and the President's statement that things are going so well. Look, I look at what's happening around the world, and I see Iran 4 years closer to a bomb. I see the Middle East with a rising tide of violence, chaos, tumult. I see jihadists continuing to spread; whether they're rising or just about the same level, hard to precisely measure, but this—it's clear they're there. They're very strong. I see Syria with 30,000 civilians dead. Asad still in power. I see our trade deficit with China larger than it's—growing larger every year, as a matter of fact. I look around the world, and I don't feel that—you see North Korea continuing to export their nuclear technology. Russia has said they're not going to follow Nunn-Lugar anymore. They're—back away from a nuclear proliferation treaty that we had with them. I look around the world, I don't see our influence growing around the world. I see our influence receding, in part because of the failure of the President to deal with our economic challenges at home, in part because of our withdrawal from our commitment to our military in the way, I think, it ought to be; in part because of the turmoil with Israel. I mean, the President received a letter from 38 Democrat Senators saying that tensions—— The President. Bob—— Gov. Romney. ——with Israel were a real problem. They asked him, please repair the tension—Democrat Senators—please repair the damage in his own party. Mr. Schieffer. All right. Governor Romney's Foreign Policy Agenda/The President's Foreign Policy Agenda The President. Governor, the problem is, is that on a whole range of issues—whether it's the Middle East, whether it's Afghanistan, whether it's Iraq, whether it's now Iran—you've been all over the map. I mean, I'm pleased that you now are endorsing our policy of applying diplomatic pressure and potentially having bilateral discussions with the Iranians to end their nuclear program. But just a few years ago, you said that's something you'd never do. In the same way that you initially opposed a timetable in Afghanistan, now you're for it, although it depends. In the same way that you say you would have ended the war in Iraq, but recently gave a speech saying that we should have 20,000 more folks in there. The same way that you said that it was mission creep to go after Qaddafi. When it comes to going after Usama bin Laden, you said, well, any President would make that call. But when you were a candidate in 2008, as I was, and I said if I got bin Laden in our sights, I would take that shot, you said we shouldn't move heaven and earth to get one man. And you said we should ask Pakistan for permission. And if we had asked Pakistan for permission, we would not have gotten him. And it was worth moving heaven and earth to get him. After we killed bin Laden, I was at Ground Zero for a memorial and talked to a young woman who was 4 years old when 9/11 happened. And the last conversation she had with her father was him calling from the Twin Towers, saying, "Payton, I love you, and I will always watch over you." And for the next decade, she was haunted by that conversation. And she said to me, "By finally getting bin Laden, that brought some closure to me." And when we do things like that, when we bring those who have harmed us to justice, that sends a message to the world, and it tells Payton that we did not forget her father. Mr. Schieffer. All right. The President. And I make that point because that's the kind of clarity of leadership—and those decisions are not always popular. Those decisions generally are not poll tested. And even some in my own party, including my current Vice President, had the same critique as you did. But what the American people understand is, is that I look at what we need to get done to keep the American people safe and to move our interests forward, and I make those decisions. Mr. Schieffer. All right, let's go. And that leads us—this takes us right to the next segment, Governor, America's longest war, Afghanistan and Pakistan—— Gov. Romney. Bob—— Mr. Schieffer. Governor, you get to go first here. Gov. Romney. You can't—okay, but you can't have the President just lay out a whole series of items without giving me a chance to respond. Mr. Schieffer. Well, with respect, sir, you had laid out quite a program there. Gov. Romney. Well, that's probably true. [Laughter] Mr. Schieffer. And we'll give you—— The President. We'll agree on that. Afghanistan/Pakistan Mr. Schieffer. We'll catch up. The United States is scheduled to turn over responsibility for security in Afghanistan to the Afghan Government in 2014. At that point we will withdraw our combat troops, leave a smaller force of Americans—if I understand our policy—in Afghanistan for training purposes. It seems to me the key question here is what do you do if the deadline arrives and it is obvious the Afghans are unable to handle their security? Do we still leave? And I believe, Governor Romney, you go first. Gov. Romney. Well, we're going to be finished by 2014. And when I'm President, we'll make sure we bring our troops out by the end of 2014. The commanders and the generals there are on track to do so. We've seen progress over the past several years. The surge has been successful, and the training program is proceeding apace. There are now a large number of Afghan security forces, 350,000, that are ready to step in to provide security, and we're going to be able to make that transition by the end of 2014. So our troops will come home at that point. I can tell you at the same time that we will make sure that we look at what's happening in Pakistan and recognize that what's happening in Pakistan is going to have a major impact on the success in Afghanistan. And I say that because I know a lot of people just feel like we should brush our hands and walk away—and I don't mean you, Mr. President—but some people in our Nation feel that Pakistan isn't being nice to us and that we should just walk away from them. Pakistan is important to the region, to the world, and to us, because Pakistan has a hundred nuclear warheads and they're rushing to build a lot more. They'll have more than Great Britain sometime in the relatively near future. They also have the Haqqani network and the Taliban existent within their country. And so a Pakistan that falls apart, becomes a failed state, would be of extraordinary danger to Afghanistan and to us. And so we're going to have to remain helpful in encouraging Pakistan to move towards a more stable government and rebuild a relationship with us. And that means that our aid that we provide to Pakistan is going to have to be conditioned upon certain benchmarks being met. So for me, I look at this as both a need to help move Pakistan in the right direction and also to get Afghanistan to be ready, and they will be ready by the end of 2014. Afghanistan/Pakistan/Veterans Mr. Schieffer. Mr. President. The President. When I came into office, we were still bogged down in Iraq, and Afghanistan had been drifting for a decade. We ended the war in Iraq, refocused our attention on Afghanistan, and we did deliver a surge of troops. That was facilitated, in part, because we had ended the war in Iraq. And we are now in a position where we have met many of the objectives that got us there in the first place. Part of what had happened is, we had forgotten why we had gone. We went because there were people who were responsible for 3,000 American deaths. And so we decimated Al Qaida's core leadership in the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We then started to build up Afghan forces, and we're now in a position where we can transition out, because there's no reason why Americans should die when Afghans are perfectly capable of defending their own country. Now, that transition has to take place in a responsible fashion. We've been there a long time, and we've got to make sure that we and our coalition partners are pulling out responsibly and giving Afghans the capabilities that they need. But what I think the American people recognize is after a decade of war, it's time to do some nation-building here at home. And what we can now do is free up some resources to, for example, put Americans back to work—especially our veterans—rebuilding our roads, our bridges, our schools; making sure that our veterans are getting the care that they need when it comes to posttraumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury; making sure that the certifications that they need for good jobs of the future are in place. I was having lunch with some—a veteran in Minnesota who had been a medic dealing with the most extreme circumstances. When he came home and he wanted to become a nurse, he had to start from scratch. And what we've said is, let's change those certifications. The First Lady has done great work with an organization called Joining Forces, putting our veterans back to work. And as a consequence, veterans unemployment is actually now lower than the general population; it was higher when I came into office. So those are the kinds of things that we can now do because we're making that transition in Afghanistan. Pakistan Mr. Schieffer. All right, let me go to Governor Romney, because you talked about Pakistan and what needs to be done there. General Allen, our commander in Afghanistan, says that Americans continue to die at the hands of groups who are supported by Pakistan. We know that Pakistan has arrested the doctor who helped us catch Obamas—bin Laden. It still provides safe haven for terrorists. Yet we continue to give Pakistan billions of dollars. Is it time for us to divorce Pakistan? Gov. Romney. No, it's not time to divorce a nation on Earth that has a hundred nuclear weapons and is on the way to double that at some point, a nation that has serious threats from terrorist groups within its nation, as I indicated before, the Taliban, the Haqqani network. It's a nation that's not like others, and it does not have a civilian leadership that is calling the shots there. You've got the ISI, their intelligence organization, that's probably the most powerful of three branches there. Then you have the military, and then you have the civilian Government. This is a nation, which, if it falls apart, if it becomes a failed state, there are nuclear weapons there, and you've got terrorists there who could grab their hands onto those nuclear weapons. This is an important part of the world for us. Pakistan is technically an ally, and they're not acting very much like an ally right now, but we have some work to do. And I don't blame the administration for the fact that the relationship with Pakistan is strained. We had to go into Pakistan. We had to go in there to get Usama bin Laden. That was the right thing to do. And that upset them, but there was obviously a great deal of anger even before that. But we're going to have to work with the people in Pakistan to try and help them move to a more responsible course than the one that they're on. It's important for them. It's important for the nuclear weapons. It's important for the success of Afghanistan, because inside Pakistan you have a large group of Pashtuns that are Taliban. They're going to come rushing back in to Afghanistan when we go, and that's one of the reasons the Afghan security forces have so much work to do to be able to fight against that. But it's important for us to recognize that we can't just walk away from Pakistan. But we do need to make sure that as we send support for them, that this is tied to them making progress on matters that would lead them to becoming a civil society. Counterterrorism/The President's Foreign Policy Agenda/Israel Mr. Schieffer. Let me ask you, Governor—because we know President Obama's position on this—what is your position on the use of drones? Gov. Romney. Well, I believe that we should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us and our friends around the world. And it's widely reported that drones are being used in drone strikes, and I support that entirely, and feel the President was right to up the usage of that technology, and believe that we should continue to use it to continue to go after the people who represent a threat to this Nation and to our friends. Let me also note that, as I said earlier, we're going to have to do more than just going after leaders and killing bad guys, important as that is. We're also going to have to have a far more effective and comprehensive strategy to help move the world away from terror and Islamic extremism. We haven't done that yet. We talk a lot about these things, but you look at the record. You look at the record of the last 4 years and say, is Iran closer to a bomb? Yes. Is the Middle East in tumult? Yes. Is Al Qaida on the run, on its heels? No. Is—are Israel and the Palestinians closer to reaching a peace agreement? No, they haven't had talks in 2 years. We have not seen the progress we need to have. And I'm convinced that with strong leadership and an effort to build a strategy based upon helping these nations reject extremism, we can see the kind of peace and prosperity the world demands. Counterterrorism/Democracy Promotion The President. Well, keep in mind, our strategy wasn't just going after bin Laden. We've created partnerships throughout the region to deal with extremism: in Somalia, in Yemen, in Pakistan. And what we've also done is engage these Governments in the kind of reforms that are actually going to make a difference in people's lives day to day: to make sure that their Governments aren't corrupt, to make sure that they are treating women with the kind of respect and dignity that every nation that succeeds has shown, and to make sure that they've got a free market system that works. So across the board, we are engaging them in building capacity in these countries, and we have stood on the side of democracy. One thing I think Americans should be proud of, when Tunisians began to protest, this Nation—me, my administration—stood with them earlier than just about any other country. In Egypt, we stood on the side of democracy. In Libya, we stood on the side of the people. And as a consequence, there's no doubt that attitudes about Americans have changed. But there are always going to be elements in these countries that potentially threaten the United States, and we want to shrink those groups and those networks, and we can do that. But we're always also going to have to maintain vigilance when it comes to terrorist activities. The truth, though, is that Al Qaida is much weaker than it was when I came into office, and they don't have the same capacities to attack the U.S. homeland and our allies as they did 4 years ago. China Mr. Schieffer. Let's go to the next segment, because it's a very important one. It is the rise of China and future challenges for America. I want to just begin this by asking both of you—and, Mr. President, you go first this time—what do you believe is the greatest future threat to the national security of this country? The President. Well, I think it will continue to be terrorist networks. We have to remain vigilant, as I just said. But with respect to China, China is both an adversary, but also a potential partner in the international community if it's following the rules. So my attitude coming into office was that we are going to insist that China plays by the same rules as everybody else. Now, I know Americans had seen jobs being shipped overseas, businesses and workers not getting a level playing field when it came to trade. And that's the reason why I set up a trade Task Force to go after cheaters when it came to international trade. That's the reason why we have brought more cases against China for violating trade rules than the other—the previous administration had done in two terms. And we've won just about every case that we filed, that has been decided. In fact, just recently, steelworkers in Ohio and throughout the Midwest, Pennsylvania, are in a position now to sell steel to China because we won that case. We had a tire case in which they were flooding us with cheap domestic tires—or cheap Chinese tires, and we put a stop to it and, as a consequence, saved jobs throughout America. I have to say that Governor Romney criticized me for being too tough in that tire case, said this wouldn't be good for American workers and that it would be protectionist. But I tell you, those workers don't feel that way. They feel as if they had finally an administration who was going to take this issue seriously. Over the long term, in order for us to compete with China, we've also got to make sure, though, that we're taking care of business here at home. If we don't have the best education system in the world, if we don't continue to put money into research and technology that will allow us to create great businesses here in the United States, that's how we lose the competition. And unfortunately, Governor Romney's budget and his proposals would not allow us to make those investments. Mr. Schieffer. All right. Governor. Gov. Romney. Well, first of all, it's not government that makes business successful. It's not government investments that make businesses grow and hire people. Let me also note that the greatest threat that the world faces, the greatest national security threat is a nuclear Iran. Let's talk about China. China has an interest that's very much like ours in one respect, and that is they want a stable world. They don't want war. They don't want to see protectionism. They don't want to see the world break out into various forms of chaos, because they have to manufacture goods and put people to work. They have about 20,000—20 million, rather, people coming out of the farms every year, coming into the cities, needing jobs. So they want the economy to work and the world to be free and open. And so we can be a partner with China. We don't have to be an adversary in any way, shape, or form. We can work with them. We can collaborate with them, if they're willing to be responsible. Now, they look at us and say, is it a good idea to be with America? How strong are we going to be? How strong is our economy? They look at the fact that we owe them a trillion dollars and owe other people 16 trillion in total, including them. They look at our decision to cut back on our military capabilities: a trillion dollars. The Secretary of Defense called these trillion dollars of cuts to our military devastating. It's not my term. It's the President's own Secretary of Defense called them devastating. They look at America's commitments around the world, and they see what's happening, and they say, well, okay, is America going to be strong? And the answer is yes; if I'm President, America will be very strong. We'll also make sure that we have trade relations with China that work for us. I've watched year in and year out as companies have shut down and people have lost their jobs because China has not played by the same rules, in part by holding down artificially the value of their currency; it holds down the prices of their goods. It means our goods aren't as competitive, and we lose jobs. That's got to end. They're making some progress. They need to make more. That's why on day one I will label them a currency manipulator, which allows us to apply tariffs where they're taking jobs. They're stealing our intellectual property, our patents, our designs, our technology, hacking into our computers, counterfeiting our goods. They have to understand, we want to trade with them, we want a world that's stable, we like free enterprise, but you've got to play by the rules. China Mr. Schieffer. Well, Governor, let me just ask you, if you declare them a currency manipulator on day one, some people are—say you're just going to start a trade war with China on day one. Is that—isn't there a risk that that could happen? Gov. Romney. Well, they sell us about this much stuff every year, and we sell them about this much stuff every year. So it's pretty clear who doesn't want a trade war. And there's one going on right now which we don't know about; it's a silent one, and they're winning. We have enormous trade imbalance with China. And it's worse this year than last year. And it's worst last year than the year before. And so we have to understand that we can't just surrender and lose jobs year in and year out. We have to say to our friends in China, look, you guys are playing aggressively, we understand it, but this can't keep on going. You can't keep on holding down the value of your currency, stealing our intellectual property, counterfeiting our products, selling them around the world, even into the United States. I was with one company that makes valves in process industries. And they said, look, we were having some valves coming in that were broken, and we had to repair them under warranty. And we looked them up, and they had our serial number on them, and then we noticed that there was more than one with that same serial number. There were counterfeit products being made overseas with the same serial number as a U.S. company, the same packaging. These were being sold into our market and around the world as if they were made by the U.S. competitor. This can't go on. I want a great relationship with China. China can be our partner, but that doesn't mean they can just roll all over us and steal our jobs on an unfair basis. Global Competitiveness/China The President. Well, Governor Romney is right, you are familiar with jobs being shipped overseas because you invested in companies that were shipping jobs overseas. And that's your right. I mean, that's how our free market works. But I've made a different bet on American workers. If we had taken your advice, Governor Romney, about our auto industry, we'd be buying cars from China instead of selling cars to China. If we take your advice with respect to how we change our Tax Code so that companies that are in profits overseas don't pay U.S. taxes compared to companies here that are paying taxes, that's estimated to create 800,000 jobs. The problem is they won't be here, they'll be in places like China. And if we're not making investments in education and basic research, which is not something that the private sector is doing at a sufficient pace right now and has never done, then we will lose the lead in things like clean energy technology. Now, with respect to what we've done with China already, U.S. exports have doubled, since I came into office, to China. And actually, currencies are at their most advantageous point for U.S. exporters since 1993. We absolutely have to make more progress, and that's why we're going to keep on pressing. And when it comes to our military and Chinese security, part of the reason that we were able to pivot to the Asia-Pacific region after having ended the war in Iraq and transitioning out of Afghanistan is precisely because this is going to be a massive growth area in the future. And we believe China can be a partner, but we're also sending a very clear signal that America is a Pacific power, that we are going to have a presence there. We are working with countries in the region to make sure, for example, that ships can pass through, that commerce continues. And we're organizing trade relations with countries other than China so that China starts feeling more pressure about meeting basic international standards. That's the kind of leadership we've shown in the region. That's the kind of leadership that we'll continue to show. U.S. Automobile Industry Gov. Romney. I just want to take one of those points. Again, attacking me is not talking about an agenda for getting more trade and opening up more jobs in this country. But the President mentioned the auto industry and that somehow I would be in favor of jobs being elsewhere. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm a son of Detroit. I was born in Detroit. My dad was head of a car company. I like American cars, and I would do nothing to hurt the U.S. auto industry. My plan to get the industry on its feet when it was in real trouble was not to start writing checks. It was President Bush that wrote the first checks. I disagreed with that. I said they need—these companies need to go through a managed bankruptcy. And in that process, they can get Government help and Government guarantees, but they need to go through bankruptcy to get rid of excess cost and the debt burden that they'd built up. And fortunately, the President took—— The President. Governor Romney, that's not what you said. Gov. Romney. Fortunately, the President—you can take a look at the op-ed. You can take a look at the op-ed. The President. Governor Romney, you did not say that you would provide Government help. Gov. Romney. You know, I'm still speaking. I said that we would provide guarantees, and that was what was able to allow these companies to go through bankruptcy, to come out of bankruptcy. Under no circumstances would I do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet. And the idea that has been suggested, that I would liquidate the industry, of course not, of course not. The President. Let's check the record. Gov. Romney. That's the height of silliness. I have never said I would—— The President. Let's check the record. Gov. Romney. ——liquidate the industry. I want to keep the industry going and thriving. The President. Governor, the people of Detroit don't forget. Global Competitiveness Gov. Romney. And that's why I have the kind of commitment to make sure that our industries in this country can compete and be successful. We in this country can compete successfully with anyone in the world, and we're going to. We're going to have to have a President, however, that doesn't think that somehow the Government investing in car companies like Tesla and Fisker, making electric battery cars—this is not research, Mr. President. These are the Government investing in companies, investing in Solyndra. This is a company; this isn't basic research. I want to invest in research. Research is great. Providing funding to universities and think tanks, great. But investing in companies, absolutely not. That's the wrong way to go. The President. Governor, the fact of the matter is—— Gov. Romney. I'm still speaking. So I want to make sure that we make America more competitive and that we do those things that make America the most attractive place in the world for entrepreneurs, innovators, businesses to grow. But your investing in companies doesn't do that. In fact, it makes it less likely for them to come here, because the private sector is not going to invest in a solar company—— The President. Governor, I'm happy to respond. You've held the floor for a while. Gov. Romney. ——if you're investing Government money in someone else's. The President. Look, I think anybody out there can check the record. Governor Romney, you keep on trying to airbrush history here. You were very clear that you would not provide Government assistance to the U.S. auto companies even if they went through bankruptcy. You said that they could get it in the private marketplace. That wasn't true. They would have gone through—— Gov. Romney. You're wrong. You're wrong, Mr. President. The President. No, I am not wrong. Gov. Romney. You're wrong. The President. I am not wrong. Gov. Romney. People can look it up, you're right. The President. People will look it up. Gov. Romney. Good. The President. But more importantly, it is true that in order for us to be competitive, we're going to have to make some smart choices right now. Cutting our education budget, that's not a smart choice. That will not help us compete with China. Cutting our investments in research and technology, that's not a smart choice. That will not help us compete with China. Bringing down our deficit by adding $7 trillion of tax cuts and military spending that our military is not asking for, before we even get to the debt that we currently have, that is not going to make us more competitive. Those are the kinds of choices that the American people face right now. Having a Tax Code that rewards companies that are shipping jobs overseas instead of companies that are investing here in the United States, that will not make us more competitive. And the one thing that I'm absolutely clear about is that after a decade in which we saw a drift, jobs being shipped overseas, nobody championing American workers and American businesses, we've now begun to make some real progress. What we can't do is go back to the same policies that got us into such difficulty in the first place. And that's why we have to move forward and not go back. The President's Economic Record Gov. Romney. I couldn't agree more about going forward, but I certainly don't want to go back to the policies of the last 4 years. The policies of the last 4 years has seen incomes in America decline every year for middle-income families, now down $4,300 during your term. Twenty-three million Americans still struggling to find a good job. When you came to office, 32 million people on food stamps; today, 47 million people on food stamps. When you came to office, just over $10 trillion in debt; now $16 trillion in debt. It hasn't worked. You said by now we'd be at 5.4-percent unemployment. We're 9 million jobs short of that. I've met some of those people. I met them in Appleton, Wisconsin. I met a young woman in Philadelphia who's coming out of college, can't find work. Ann was with someone just the other day that was just weeping about not being able to get work. It's just a tragedy in a nation so prosperous as ours that these last 4 years have been so hard. And that's why it's so critical that we make America once again the most attractive place in the world to start businesses, to build jobs, to grow the economy. And that's not going to happen by just hiring teachers. Look, I'd love to—I love teachers, and I'm happy to have States and communities that want to hire teachers do that. By the way, I don't like to have the Federal Government start pushing its way deeper and deeper into our schools; let the States and localities do that. I was a Governor; the Federal Government didn't hire our teachers. Mr. Schieffer. Governor—— Gov. Romney. But I love teachers, but I want to get our private sector growing, and I know how to do it. Mr. Schieffer. I think we all love teachers. [Laughter] Gentlemen, thank you so much for a very vigorous debate. We have come to the end. It is time for closing statements. I believe you're first, Mr. President. Closing Statements The President. Well, thank you very much, Bob, Governor Romney, and to Lynn University. You've now heard three debates, months of campaigning, and way too many TV commercials. [Laughter] And now you've got a choice. Over the last 4 years, we've made real progress digging our way out of policies that gave us two prolonged wars, record deficits, and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. And Governor Romney wants to take us back to those policies: a foreign policy that's wrong and reckless; economic policies that won't create jobs, won't reduce our deficit, but will make sure that folks at the very top don't have to play by the same rules that you do. And I've got a different vision for America. I want to build on our strengths. And I've put forward a plan to make sure that we're bringing manufacturing jobs back to our shores by rewarding companies and small businesses that are investing here, not overseas. I want to make sure we've got the best education system in the world, and we're retaining our workers for the jobs of tomorrow. I want to control our own energy by developing oil and natural gas, but also the energy sources of the future. Yes, I want to reduce our deficit by cutting spending that we don't need, but also by asking the wealthy to do a little bit more so that we can invest in things like research and technology that are the key to a 21st-century economy. As Commander in Chief, I will maintain the strongest military in the world, keep faith with our troops, and go after those who would do us harm. But after a decade of war, I think we all recognize we've got to do some nation-building here at home rebuilding our roads, our bridges, and especially caring for our veterans who sacrificed so much for our freedom. We've been through tough times, but we always bounce back because of our character, because we pull together. And if I have the privilege of being your President for another 4 years, I promise you I will always listen to your voices, I will fight for your families, and I will work every single day to make sure that America continues to be the greatest nation on Earth. Thank you. Mr. Schieffer. Governor. Gov. Romney. Thank you. Bob, Mr. President, folks at Lynn University, good to be with you. I'm optimistic about the future. I'm excited about our prospects as a nation. I want to see peace. I want to see growing peace in this country. It's our objective. We have an opportunity to have real leadership. America is going to have that kind of leadership and continue to promote principles of peace that will make the world a safer place and make people in this country more confident that their future is secure. I also to want to make sure that we get this economy going. And there are two very different paths the country can take. One is a path represented by the President, which, at the end of 4 years, would mean we'd have $20 trillion in debt, heading towards Greece. I'll get us on track to a balanced budget. The President's path will mean continuing declining in take-home pay. I want to make sure our take-home pay turns around and starts to grow. The President's path means 20 million people out of work, struggling for a good job. I'll get people back to work with 12 million new jobs. I'm going to make sure that we get people off of food stamps, not by cutting the program, but by getting them good jobs. America is going to come back, and for that to happen, we're going to have to have a President who can work across the aisle. I was in a State where my legislature was 87-percent Democrat. I learned how to get along on the other side of the aisle. We've got to do that in Washington. Washington is broken. I know what it takes to get this country back, and we'll work with good Democrats and good Republicans to do that. This Nation is the hope of the Earth. We've been blessed by having a nation that's free and prosperous thanks to the contributions of the greatest generation. They've held a torch for the world to see, a torch of freedom and hope and opportunity. Now it's our turn to take that torch. I'm convinced we'll do it. We need strong leadership. I'd like to be that leader, with your support. I'll work with you. I'll lead you in an open and honest way. And I ask for your vote. I'd like to be the next President of the United States to support and help this great Nation, and to make sure that we all together maintain America as the hope of the Earth. Thank you so much. Mr. Schieffer. Gentlemen, thank you both so much. That brings an end to this year's debates. And we want to thank Lynn University and its students for having us. As I always do at the end of these debates, I leave you with the words of my mom, who said, go vote. [Laughter] It makes you feel big and strong. The President. That's great. Mr. Schieffer. Good night. Source: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/presidential-debate-boca-raton-florida

October 16, 2012   Moderator Candy Crowley . Good evening from Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. I'm Candy Crowley from CNN's "State of the Union." We are here for the second Presidential Debate, a town hall sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The Gallup organization chose 82 uncommitted voters from the New York area. Their questions will drive the night. My goal is to give the conversation direction and to ensure questions get answered. The questions are known to me and my team only. Neither the commission, nor the candidates have seen them. I hope to get to as many questions as possible, and because I am the optimistic sort, I'm sure the candidates will oblige by keeping their answers concise and on point. Each candidate has as much as 2 minutes to respond to a common question, and there will be a 2-minute follow-up. The audience here in the hall has agreed to be polite and attentive; no cheering, no booing, or outbursts of any sort. We will set aside that agreement just this once to welcome President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. Gentlemen, thank you both for joining us here tonight. We have a lot of folks who have been waiting all day to talk to you, so I want to get right to it. Governor Romney, as you know, you won the coin toss, so the first question will go to you. And I want to turn to a first-time voter, Jeremy Epstein, who has a question for you. Education/College Affordability/Job Creation Q. Mr. President, Governor Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors, and others is that when I graduate, I'll have little chance to get employment. What can you say to reassure me, but more importantly, my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate? Republican Presidential Nominee W. Mitt Romney.  Thank you, Jeremy. I appreciate your question. And thank you for being here this evening. And to all of those from Nassau County here that have come, thank you for your time. Thank you to Hofstra University and to Candy Crowley for organizing and leading this event. Thank you, Mr. President, also for being part of this debate. Your question is one that's being asked by college kids all over this country. I was in Pennsylvania with someone who had just graduated. This was in Philadelphia, and she said: "I've got my degree, I can't find a job. I've got three part-time jobs; they're just barely enough to pay for my food and pay for an apartment. I can't begin to pay back my student loans." So what we have to do is two things. We have to make sure that we make it easier for kids to afford college and also make sure that when they get out of college there's a job. When I was Governor of Massachusetts, to get a high school degree you had to pass an exam. If you graduated in the top quarter of your class, we gave you a John and Abigail Adams Scholarship: 4 years tuition free to the college of your choice in Massachusetts; it's a public institution. I want to make sure we keep our Pell grant program growing. We're also going to have our loan program so that people are able to afford school. But the key thing is to make sure you can get a job when you get out of school. And what's happened over the last 4 years has been very, very hard for America's young people. I want you to be able to get a job. I know what it takes to get this economy going. With half of college kids graduating this year without a college—excuse me—without a job and without a college-level job, that's just unacceptable. And likewise, you got more and more debt on your back. So more debt and less jobs. I'm going to change that. I know what it takes to create good jobs again. I know what it takes to make sure that you have the kind of opportunity you deserve. And kids across this country are going to recognize we're bringing back an economy. It's not going to be like the last 4 years. The middle class has been crushed over the last 4 years, and jobs have been too scarce. I know what it takes to bring them back, and I'm going to do that and make sure when you graduate—when do you graduate? Q. 2014. Gov. Romney.  2014. When you come out in 2014, I presume I'm going to be President; I'm going to make sure you get a job. Thanks, Jeremy. Q. Thank you. Gov. Romney.  Yes, you bet. Ms. Crowley.  Mr. President. Job Creation/Education/Domestic Energy Sources/Deficit and National Debt The President.  Jeremy, first of all, your future is bright. And the fact that you're making an investment in higher education is critical not just to you, but to the entire Nation. Now, the most important thing we can do is to make sure that we are creating jobs in this country, but not just jobs, good-paying jobs, ones that can support a family. And what I want to do is build on the 5 million jobs that we've created over the last 30 months in the private sector alone. And there are a bunch of things that we can do to make sure your future is bright. Number one, I want to build manufacturing jobs in this country again. When Governor Romney said we should let Detroit go bankrupt, I said, we're going to bet on American workers and the American auto industry, and it's come surging back. I want to do that in industries not just in Detroit, but all across the country. And that means we change our Tax Code so we're giving incentives to companies that are investing here in the United States and creating jobs here. It also means we're helping them and small businesses to export all around the world to new markets. Number two, we've got to make sure that we have the best education system in the world. And the fact that you're going to college is great, but I want everybody to get a great education. And we've worked hard to make sure that student loans are available for folks like you. But I also want to make sure that community colleges are offering slots for workers to get retrained for the jobs that are out there right now and the jobs of the future. Number three, we've got to control our own energy. Not only oil and natural gas, which we've been investing in, but also we've got to make sure we're building the energy sources of the future, not just thinking about next year, but 10 years from now, 20 years from now. That's why we've invested in solar and wind and biofuels, energy-efficient cars. We've got to reduce our deficit, but we've got to do it in a balanced way, asking the wealthy to pay a little bit more along with cuts so that we can invest in education like yours. And let's take the money that we've been spending on war over the last decade to rebuild America: roads, bridges, schools. We do those things, not only is your future going to be bright, but America's future is going to be bright as well. Job Losses/Job Creation/Automobile Industry Ms. Crowley.  Let me ask you for a more immediate answer, beginning with Mr. Romney. Just quickly, what can you do? We're looking at a situation where 40 percent of the unemployed have been unemployed for 6 months or more. They don't have the 2 years that Jeremy has. What about those long-term unemployed who need a job right now? Gov. Romney.  Well, what you're seeing in this country is 23 million people struggling to find a job and a lot of them, as you say, Candy, have been out of work for a long, long, long time. The President's policies have been exercised over the last 4 years, and they haven't put Americans back to work. We have fewer people working today than we had when the President took office. If the—the unemployment rate was 7.8 percent when he took office; it's 7.8 percent now. But if you calculated that unemployment rate taking back the people who dropped out of the workforce, it would be 10.7 percent. We have not made the progress we need to make to put people back to work. That's why I put out a five-point plan that gets America 12 million new jobs in 4 years and rising take-home pay. It's going to help Jeremy get a job when he comes out of school. It's going to help people across the country that are unemployed right now. And one thing that the President said, which I want to make sure that we understand: He said that I said we should take Detroit bankrupt. And that's right. My plan was to have the company go through bankruptcy like 7-Eleven did and Macy's and Continental Airlines and come out stronger. And I know he keeps saying, you wanted to take Detroit bankrupt. Well, the President took Detroit bankrupt. You took General Motors bankrupt. You took Chrysler bankrupt. So when you say that I wanted to take the auto industry bankrupt, you actually did. And I think it's important to know that that was a process that was necessary to get those companies back on their feet so they could start hiring more people. That was precisely what I recommended and ultimately what happened. Automobile Industry/Governor Romney's Economic Platform Ms. Crowley.  Let me give the President a chance. Go ahead. The President.  Candy, what Governor Romney said just isn't true. He wanted to take them into bankruptcy without providing them any way to stay open, and we would have lost a million jobs. And that—don't take my word for it. Take the executives at GM and Chrysler, some of whom are Republicans, may even support Governor Romney, but they'll tell you his prescription wasn't going to work. And Governor Romney says he's got a five-point plan. Governor Romney doesn't have a five-point plan; he has a one-point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules. That's been his philosophy in the private sector. That's been his philosophy as Governor. That's been his philosophy as a Presidential candidate. You can make a lot of money and pay lower tax rates than somebody who makes a lot less. You can ship jobs overseas and get tax breaks for it. You can invest in a company, bankrupt it, lay off the workers, strip away their pensions, and you still make money. That's exactly the philosophy that we've seen in place for the last decade. That's what's been squeezing middle class families. And we have fought back for 4 years to get out of that mess. The last thing we need to do is to go back to the very same policies that got us there. Ms. Crowley.  Mr. President, the next question is going to be for you here. And Mr. Romney—Governor Romney, there'll be plenty of chances here to go on, but I want to—— Gov. Romney.  That Detroit answer—— Ms. Crowley. ——we have all these folks—I will let you absolutely—— Gov. Romney. ——that Detroit answer and the rest of the answer, way off the mark. Ms. Crowley.  Okay. We'll—you certainly will have lots of time here coming up, because I want to move you on to something that's sort of connected to cars here and go over—and we want to get a question from Phillip Tricolla. Domestic Energy Sources/Alternative and Renewable Energy Sources and Technologies Q. Your Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it's not policy of his Department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department? The President.  The most important thing we can do is to make sure we control our own energy. So here's what I've done since I've been President. We have increased oil production to the highest levels in 16 years. Natural gas production is the highest it's been in decades. We have seen increases in coal production and coal employment. But what I've also said is, we can't just produce traditional sources of energy. We've also got to look to the future. That's why we doubled fuel efficiency standards on cars. That means that in the middle of the next decade, any car you buy, you're going to end up going twice as far on a gallon of gas. That's why we've doubled clean energy production like wind and solar and biofuels. And all these things have contributed to us lowering our oil imports to the lowest levels in 16 years. Now, I want to build on that. And that means, yes, we still continue to open up new areas for drilling. We continue to make it a priority for us to go after natural gas. We've got potentially 600,000 jobs and a hundred years' worth of energy right beneath our feet with natural gas. And we can do it in an environmentally sound way. But we've also got to continue to figure out how we have efficient energy, because ultimately, that's how we're going to reduce demand and that's what's going to keep gas prices lower. Now, Governor Romney will say he's got an all-of-the-above plan. But basically, his plan is to let the oil companies write the energy policies. So he's got the oil and gas part, but he doesn't have the clean energy part. And if we're only thinking about tomorrow or the next day, and not thinking about 10 years from now, we're not going to control our own economic future. Because China, Germany, they're making these investments. And I'm not going to cede those jobs of the future to those countries. I expect those new energy sources to be built right here in the United States. That's going to help Jeremy get a job. It's also going to make sure that you're not paying as much for gas. Oil and Gas Production on Public Land/Domestic Energy Sources Ms. Crowley.  Governor, on the subject of gas prices? Gov. Romney.  Well, let's look at the President's policies, all right, as opposed to the rhetoric, because we've had 4 years of policies being played out. And the President's right in terms of the additional oil production, but none of it came on Federal land. As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on Federal land, and gas production is down 9 percent. Why? Because the President cut in half the number of licenses and permits for drilling on Federal lands and in Federal waters. So where did the increase come from? Well, a lot of it came from the Bakken range in North Dakota. What was his participation there? The administration brought a criminal action against the people drilling up there for oil, this massive new resource we have. And what was the cause? Twenty or 25 birds were killed, and they brought out a Migratory Bird Act to go after them on a criminal basis. Look, I want to make sure we use our oil, our coal, our gas, our nuclear, our renewables. I believe very much in our renewable capabilities; ethanol, wind, solar will be an important part of our energy mix. But what we don't need is to have the President keeping us from taking advantage of oil, coal, and gas. This has not been Mr. Oil or Mr. Gas or Mr. Coal. Talk to the people that are working in those industries. I was in coal country. People grab my arms and say, please save my job. The head of the EPA said you can't build a coal plant. He'll virtually—it's virtually impossible given our regulations. When the President ran for office, he said, if you build a coal plant, you can go ahead, but you'll go bankrupt. That's not the right course for America. Let's take advantage of the energy resources we have as well as the energy sources for the future. And if we do that, if we do what I'm planning on doing, which is getting us energy independent—North America energy independence within 8 years—you're going to see manufacturing jobs come back, because our energy is low cost. They're already beginning to come back, because of our abundant energy. I'll get America and North America energy independent. I'll do it by more drilling, more permits and licenses. We're going to bring that pipeline in from Canada. How in the world the President said no to that pipeline I will never know. This is about bringing good jobs back for the middle class of America, and that's what I'm going to do. Oil and Gas Production on Public Land/Domestic Energy Sources Ms. Crowley.  Mr. President, let me just see if I can move you to the gist of this question, which is, are we looking at the new normal? I can tell you that tomorrow morning a lot of people in Hempstead will wake up and fill up and they will find that the price of gas is over $4 a gallon. Is it within the purview of the Government to bring those prices down, or are we looking at the new normal? The President.  Candy, there's no doubt that world demand has gone up. But our production is going up. And we're using oil more efficiently. And very little of what Governor Romney just said is true. We've opened up public lands. We're actually drilling more on public lands than in the previous administration, and my—the previous President was an oil man. And natural gas isn't just appearing magically; we're encouraging it and working with the industry. And when I hear Governor Romney say he's a big coal guy, I mean, keep in mind, when—Governor, when you were Governor of Massachusetts, you stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, "This plant kills," and took great pride in shutting it down. And now suddenly, you're a big champion of coal. So what I've tried to do is be consistent. With respect to something like coal, we made the largest investment in clean coal technology to make sure that even as we're producing more coal, we're producing it cleaner and smarter. Same thing with oil. Same thing with natural gas. And the proof is our oil imports are down to the lowest levels in 20 years. Oil production is up, natural gas production is up, and most importantly, we're also starting to build cars that are more efficient. And that's creating jobs. That means those cars can be exported because that's the demand around the world, and it also means that it will save money in your pocketbook. That's the strategy you need, an all-of-the-above strategy, and that's what we're going to do in the next 4 years. Oil and Gas Production on Public Land/Gasoline Prices Gov. Romney.  But that's not what you've done in the last 4 years. That's the problem. The President.  Sure it is. Gov. Romney.  In the last 4 years, you cut permits and licenses on Federal land and Federal waters in half. The President.  Not true, Governor Romney. Gov. Romney.  So how much did you cut it by? The President.  It's not true. Gov. Romney.  By how much did you cut them by then? The President.  Governor, we have actually produced more oil on—— Gov. Romney.  No, no, how much did you cut licenses and permits—— The President.  Governor—— Gov. Romney.  ——on Federal land and Federal waters? The President.  Governor Romney, here's what we did: There were a whole bunch of oil companies—— Gov. Romney.  No, I had a question—— The President.  No, you—— Gov. Romney.  ——and the question was how much did you cut them by? How much did you cut them by? The President.  You want me to answer a question. I'm happy to answer the question. Gov. Romney.  All right, and it is? The President.  Here's what happened: You had a whole bunch of oil companies who had leases on public lands that they weren't using. So what we said was, you can't just sit on this for 10, 20, 30 years, decide when you want to drill, when you want to produce, when it's most profitable for you. These are public lands, so if you want to drill on public lands, you use it or you lose it. Gov. Romney.  Okay, now, that's—— The President.  And so what we did was take away those leases, and we are now reletting them so that we can actually make a profit. Gov. Romney.  And production on private—on Government lands—— The President.  And production is up. Gov. Romney.  ——is down. The President.  No it isn't. Gov. Romney.  Production on Government land of oil is down 14 percent—— The President.  Governor—— Gov. Romney. ——and production of gas is down 9 percent. The President. ——what you're saying is just not true. It's just not true. Gov. Romney.  It's absolutely true. Look, there's no question but that the people recognize that we have not produced more oil and gas—— The President.  I'll give you your time. Go ahead. Gov. Romney. ——on Federal lands and in Federal waters. And coal? Coal production is not up; coal jobs are not up. I was just at a coal facility where some 1,200 people lost their jobs. The right course for America is to have a true all-of-the-above policy. I don't think anyone really believes that you're a person who's going to be pushing for oil and gas and coal. You'll get your chance in a moment. I'm still speaking. The President. Well, Governor, if you're—— Gov. Romney. And the answer is, I don't believe people think that's the case because I—— The President. ——if you're asking me a question, I'm going to answer it. Gov. Romney.  That wasn't a question. The President.  Okay. Go ahead. Gov. Romney.  That was a statement. I don't think the American people believe that. I will fight for oil, coal, and natural gas. And the proof of whether a strategy is working or not is what the price is that you're paying at the pump. If you're paying less than you paid a year or two ago, why, then, the strategy is working. But you're paying more. When the President took office, the price of gasoline here in Nassau County was about a buck-eighty-six a gallon. Now it's 4 bucks a gallon. The price of electricity is up. If the President's energy policies are working, you're going to see the cost of energy come down. I will fight to create more energy in this country to get America energy secure, and part of that is bringing in a pipeline of oil from Canada, taking advantage of the oil and coal we have here, drilling offshore in Alaska, drilling offshore in Virginia, where the people want it. Ms. Crowley.  Let me give—— Gov. Romney.  Those things will get us the energy we need. Gasoline Prices/Oil and Gas Production/Alternative and Renewable Energy Sources and Technologies Ms. Crowley.  Mr. President, could you address—because we did finally get to gas prices here—could you address what the Governor said, which is if your energy policy was working, the price of gasoline would not be $4 a gallon here. Is that true? The President.  Well, think about what the Governor just said. He said, when I took office the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse. Because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression, as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney is now promoting. So it's conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices, because with his policies we might be back in that same mess. [ Laughter ] What I want to do is to create an economy that is strong and at the same time produce energy. And with respect to this pipeline that Governor Romney keeps on talking about, we've built enough pipeline to wrap around the entire Earth once. So I'm all for pipelines. I'm all for oil production. What I'm not for is us ignoring the other half of the equation. So, for example, on wind energy, when Governor Romney says these are imaginary jobs, when you've got thousands of people right now in Iowa, right now in Colorado, who are working, creating wind power with good-paying manufacturing jobs, and the Republican Senator in that—in Iowa is all for it, providing tax credits to help this work. And Governor Romney says, I'm opposed, I'd get rid of it. That's not an energy strategy for the future. And we need to win that future. Ms. Crowley.  Mr. President—— The President.  And I intend to win it as President of the United States. Ms. Crowley.  I've got to move you along. Gov. Romney.  No, he got the first—— Ms. Crowley.  And the next question is for you. Gov. Romney.  He actually got the first question, so I get the last question—last answer on that one. Ms. Crowley.  Actually, in the follow-up it doesn't quite work like that. [ Laughter ] Gov. Romney. Actually—— Ms. Crowley.  But I'm going to give you a chance here. I promise you, I'm going to. And the next question is for you, so if you want to continue on. But I don't want to leave all these guys sitting here, so—— Gov. Romney.  Candy, I don't have a policy of stopping wind jobs in Iowa. And they're not phantom jobs, they're real jobs. Ms. Crowley.  Okay. Gov. Romney.  I appreciate wind jobs in Iowa and across our country. I appreciate the jobs in coal and oil and gas. I'm going to make sure—— Ms. Crowley.  And you're—okay. Thank you, Governor. Gov. Romney.  ——that taking advantage of our energy resources will bring back manufacturing to America. We're going to get through a very aggressive energy policy: 3 1/2 million more jobs in this country. It's critical to our future. The President.  Candy, it's okay, I'm used to being interrupted. Ms. Crowley.  We're going to move you along to taxes. The President.  We—— Ms. Crowley.  All right, we're going to move you both along to taxes over here and all these folks that have been waiting. Governor, this question is for you. It comes from Mary Polono—Polano, sorry. Gov. Romney.  Hi, Mary. Tax Rates and Deductions Q. Governor Romney, you have stated that if you're elected President you would plan to reduce the tax rates for all the tax brackets and that you would work with the Congress to eliminate some deductions in order to make up for the loss in revenue. Concerning these various deductions—the mortgage deduction, the charitable deductions, the child tax credit, and also the—oh, what's that other credit? [ Laughter ] I forgot. The President.  You're doing great. Q. Oh, I remember—the education credits, which are important to me because I have children in college. What would be your position on those things, which are important to the middle class? Gov. Romney.  Thank you very much. And let me tell you, you're absolutely right about part of that, which is I want to bring the rates down. I want to simplify the Tax Code, and I want to get middle income taxpayers to have lower taxes. And the reason I want middle income taxpayers to have lower taxes is because middle income taxpayers have been buried over the past 4 years. You've seen, as middle income people in this country, incomes go down $4,300 a family, even as gasoline prices have gone up $2,000. Health insurance premiums up $2,500. Food prices up. Utility prices up. The middle income families in America have been crushed over the last 4 years, so I want to get some relief to middle income families. That's part one. Now, how about deductions? Because I'm going to bring rates down across the board for everybody, but I'm going to limit deductions and exemptions and credits, particularly for people at the high end, because I am not going to have people at the high end pay less than they're paying now. The top 5 percent of the taxpayers will continue to pay 60 percent of the income tax the Nation collects. So that will stay the same. Middle income people are going to get a tax break. And so, in terms of bringing down deductions, one way of doing that would be to say everybody gets—I'll pick a number—$25,000 of deductions and credits, and you can decide which ones to use. Your home mortgage interest deduction, charity, child tax credit, and so forth, you can use those as part of—fill in that bucket, if you will, of deductions. But your rate comes down, and the burden also comes down on you for one more reason, and that is, every middle income taxpayer no longer will pay any tax on interest, dividends, or capital gains; no tax on your savings. That makes life a lot easier. If you're getting interest from a bank, if you're getting a statement from a mutual fund, or any other kind of investments you have, you don't have to worry about filing taxes on that because there will be no taxes for anybody making $200,000 a year and less on your interest, dividends, and capital gains. Why am I lowering taxes on the middle class? Because under the last 4 years, they've been buried, and I want to help people in the middle class. And I will not—I will not under any circumstances reduce the share that's being paid by the highest income taxpayers. And I will not under any circumstances increase taxes on the middle class. The President's spending, the President's borrowing will cause this Nation to have to raise taxes on the American people, not just at the high end. A recent study has shown that people in the middle class will see $4,000 a year higher taxes as a result of the spending and borrowing of this administration. I will not let that happen. I'll get us on track to a balanced budget, and I'm going to reduce the tax burden on middle income families. And what's that going to do? It's going to help those families, and it's going to create incentives to start growing jobs again in this country. Ms. Crowley.  Thanks, Governor. Gov. Romney.  Thank you. Tax Rates/Governor Romney's Economic Platform The President.  My philosophy on taxes has been simple, and that is, I want to give middle class families and folks who are striving to get into the middle class some relief, because they have been hit hard, over the last decade, over the last 15, over the last 20 years. So, 4 years ago, I stood on a stage just like this one—actually, it was a town hall—and I said, I would cut taxes for middle class families, and that's what I've done, by $3,600. I said I would cut taxes for small businesses, who are the drivers and engines of growth, and we've cut them 18 times. And I want to continue those tax cuts for middle class families and for small businesses. But what I've also said is if we're serious about reducing the deficit, if this is genuinely a moral obligation to the next generation, then in addition to some tough spending cuts, we've also got to make sure that the wealthy do a little bit more. So what I've said is your first $250,000 worth of income, no change. And that means 98 percent of American families, 97 percent of small businesses, they will not see a tax increase. I'm ready to sign that bill right now. The only reason it's not happening is because Governor Romney's allies in Congress have held the 98 percent hostage, because they want tax breaks for the top 2 percent. But what I've also said is for above $250,000, we can go back to the tax rates we had when Bill Clinton was President. We created 23 million new jobs. That's part of what took us from deficits to surplus. It will be good for our economy, and it will be good for job creation. Now, Governor Romney has a different philosophy. He was on "60 Minutes" just 2 weeks ago and he was asked, is it fair for somebody like you making $20 million a year to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or bus driver, somebody making $50,000 a year. And he said, yes, I think that's fair. Not only that, he said, I think that's what grows the economy. Well, I fundamentally disagree with that. I think what grows the economy is when you get that tax credit that we put in place for your kids going to college. I think that grows the economy. I think what grows the economy is when we make sure small businesses are getting a tax credit for hiring veterans who fought for our country. That grows our economy. So we just have a different theory. And when Governor Romney stands here, after a year of campaigning, when during a Republican primary, he stood on stage and said, I'm going to give tax cuts—he didn't say tax rate cuts, he said tax cuts—to everybody, including the top 1 percent, you should believe him, because that's been his history. And that's exactly the kind of top-down economics that is not going to work if we want a strong middle class and an economy that's thriving for everybody. Ms. Crowley.  Governor Romney, I'm sure you've got a reply there. [ Laughter ] Tax Rates/Job Creation Gov. Romney.  You're absolutely right. You heard what I said about my tax plan. The top 5 percent will continue to pay 60 percent, as they do today. I'm not looking to cut taxes for wealthy people. I am looking to cut taxes for middle income people. And why do I want to bring rates down and at the same time lower exemptions and deductions, particularly for people at the high end? Because if you bring rates down, it makes it easier for small business to keep more of their capital and hire people. And for me, this is about jobs. I want to get America's economy going again. Fifty-four percent of America's workers work in businesses that are taxed as individuals. So when you bring those rates down, those small businesses are able to keep more money and hire more people. For me, I look at what's happened in the last 4 years and say this has been a disappointment. We can do better than this. We don't have to settle for—how many months?—43 months with unemployment above 8 percent, 23 million Americans struggling to find a good job right now. There are 3 1/2 million more women living in poverty today than when the President took office. We don't have to live like this. We can get this economy going again. My five-point plan does it. Energy independence for North America in 5 years; opening up more trade, particularly in Latin America; cracking down on China when they cheat; getting us to a balanced budget; fixing our training programs for our workers; and, finally, championing small business. I want to help small businesses grow and thrive. I know how to make that happen. I spent my life in the private sector. I know why jobs come and why they go. And they're going now because of the policies of this administration. Ms. Crowley.  Governor, let me ask the President something about what you just said. The Governor says that he is not going to allow the top 5 percent—I believe is what he said—to have a tax cut, that it will all even out, that what he wants to do is give that tax cut to the middle class. Settled? Budgetary Effects of Tax Cuts The President.  No, it's not settled. Look, the cost of lowering rates for everybody across the board 20 percent, along with what he also wants to do in terms of eliminating the estate tax, along what he wants to do in terms of corporate changes in the Tax Code, it costs about $5 trillion. Governor Romney then also wants to spend $2 trillion on additional military programs, even though the military is not asking for them. That's $7 trillion. He also wants to continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. That's another trillion dollars. That's $8 trillion. Now, what he says is he's going to make sure that this doesn't add to the deficit and he's going to cut middle class taxes. But when he's asked how are you going to do it, which deductions, which loopholes are you going to close, he can't tell you. The fact that he only has to pay 14 percent on his taxes when a lot of you are paying much higher, he's already taken that off the board. Capital gains are going to continue to be at a low rate, so we're not going to get money that way. We haven't heard from the Governor any specifics beyond Big Bird and eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood in terms of how he pays for that. Now, Governor Romney was a very successful investor. If somebody came to you, Governor, with a plan that said, here, I want to spend 7 or 8 trillion dollars and then we're going to pay for it, but we can't tell you until maybe after the election how we're going to do it, you wouldn't have taken such a sketchy deal. And neither should you, the American people, because the math doesn't add up. And what's at stake here is one of two things. Either, Candy, this blows up the deficit, because keep in mind, this is just to pay for the additional spending that he's talking about—7, 8 trillion dollars—that's before we even get to the deficit we already have. Or alternatively, it's got to be paid for not only by closing deductions for wealthy individuals—that will pay for about 4-percent reduction in tax rates—you're going to be paying for it. You'll lose some deductions. And you can't buy this sales pitch. Nobody who's looked at it that's serious actually believes it adds up. Gender Discrimination/Wage Equality/Education Q. In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn? The President.  Well, Catherine, this is a great question. And I was raised by a single mom who had to put herself through school while looking after two kids. And she worked hard every day and made a lot of sacrifices to make sure we got everything we needed. My grandmother, she started off as a secretary in a bank. She never got a college education even though she was smart as a whip. And she worked her way up to become a vice president at a local bank, but she hit the glass ceiling. She trained people who would end up becoming her bosses during the course of her career. She didn't complain. That's not what you did in that generation. And this is one of the reasons why one of the first—the first bill I signed was something called the Lilly Ledbetter bill, and this is named after this amazing woman who had been doing the same job as a man for years, found out that she was getting paid less, and the Supreme Court said that she couldn't bring suit because she should have found out about it earlier, when she had no way of finding out about it. So we fixed that. And that's an example of the kind of advocacy that we need, because women are increasingly the breadwinners in the family. This is not just a women's issue. This is a family issue; this is a middle class issue. And that's why we've got to fight for it. It also means that we've got to make sure that young people like yourself are able to afford a college education. Earlier, Governor Romney talked about—he wants to make Pell grants and other education accessible for young people. Well, the truth of the matter is, is that that's exactly what we've done. We've expanded Pell grants for millions of people, including millions of young women all across the country. We did it by taking $60 billion that was going to banks and lenders as middlemen for the student loan program, and we said, let's just cut out the middleman. Let's give the money directly to students. And as a consequence, we've seen millions of young people be able to afford college, and that's going to make sure that young women are going to be able to compete in that marketplace. But we've got to enforce the laws, which is what we are doing. And we've also got to make sure that in every walk of life, we do not tolerate discrimination. That's been one of the hallmarks of my administration. I'm going to continue to push on this issue for the next 4 years. Gender Discrimination/Wage Equality/National Economy Ms. Crowley.  Governor Romney, pay equity for women. Gov. Romney.  Thank you, an important topic and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as Governor of my State, because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet, and all the applicants seemed to be men. And I went to my staff, and I said, how come all the people for these jobs are all men? And they said, well, these are the people that have the qualifications. And I said, well, gosh, can't we find some women that are also qualified? And so we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women's groups and said, can you help us find folks? And they brought us whole binders full of women. I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my cabinet and my senior staff, that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 States and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other State in America. Now, one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort, but number two, because I recognize that if you're going to have women in the workforce, that sometimes they need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school. She said, I can't be here until 7 or 8 o'clock at night; I need to be able to get home at 5 o'clock so I can be there for making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said, fine, let's have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you. We're going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I'm going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers, they're going to be anxious to hire women. In the last 4 years, women have lost 580,000 jobs. That's the net of what's happened in the last 4 years. We're still down 580,000 jobs. I mentioned 3 1/2 million women more now in poverty than 4 years ago. What we can do to help young women and women of all ages is to have a strong economy, so strong that employers are looking to find good employees and bringing them into their workforce and adapting to a flexible work schedule that gives women the opportunities that they would otherwise not be able to afford. This is what I've done. It's what I look forward to doing. And I know what it takes to make an economy work. And I know what a working economy looks like. And an economy with 7.8-percent unemployment is not a real strong economy. An economy that has 23 million people looking for work is not a strong economy. An economy with 50 percent of kids graduating from college that can't find a job, or a college-level job, that's not what we have to have. Ms. Crowley. Governor—— Gov. Romney. I'm going to help women in America get good work by getting a stronger economy and by supporting women in the workforce. Wage Discrimination/Contraception and Family Planning/Women's Health Issues Ms. Crowley.  Mr. President, why don't you get in on this quickly, please? The President.  Catherine, I just want to point out that when Governor Romney's campaign was asked about the Lilly Ledbetter bill, whether he supported it, he said, I'll get back to you. And that's not the kind of advocacy that women need in any economy. Now, there are some other issues that have a bearing on how women succeed in the workplace, for example, their health care. A major difference in this campaign is that Governor Romney feels comfortable having politicians in Washington decide the health care choices that women are making. I think that's a mistake. In my health care bill, I said insurance companies need to provide contraceptive coverage to everybody who's insured, because this is not just a health issue, it's an economic issue for women. It makes a difference. This is money out of that family's pocket. Governor Romney not only opposed it, he suggested that, in fact, employers should be able to make the decision as to whether or not a woman gets contraception through her insurance coverage. That's not the kind of advocacy that women need. When Governor Romney says that we should eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood, there are millions of women all across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for not just contraceptive care, they rely on it for mammograms, for cervical cancer screenings. That's a pocketbook issue for women and families all across the country, and it makes a difference in terms of how well and effectively women are able to work. When we talk about childcare and the credits that we're providing, that makes a difference in terms of whether they can go out there and earn a living for their family. These are not just women's issues. These are family issues. These are economic issues. And one of the things that makes us grow as an economy is when everybody participates and women are getting the same, fair deal as men are. Ms. Crowley . Mr. President—— The President. And I've got two daughters, and I want to make sure that they have the same opportunities that anybody's sons have. That's a part of what I'm fighting for as President of the United States. Ms. Crowley.  I want to move us along here to Susan Katz, who has a question. And, Governor, it's for you. Contraception and Family Planning/Former President George W. Bush/Governor Romney's Policy Agenda Q. Governor Romney, I am an undecided voter because I'm disappointed with the lack of progress I've seen in the last 4 years. However, I do attribute much of America's economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration. Since both you and President Bush are Republicans, I fear a return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W. Bush? And how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush? Gov. Romney.  Great. Thank you. And I appreciate that question. I just want to make sure that—I think I was supposed to get that last answer, but I want to point out that I don't believe—— The President.  I don't think so, Candy. I want to make sure our timekeepers are working here. Gov. Romney.  The time—— Ms. Crowley.  The timekeepers are all working. The President.  All right. Ms. Crowley.  And let me tell you that the last part, it's for the two of you to talk to one another, and it isn't quite as ordered as you think. But go ahead and use this 2 minutes any way you'd like to, the question is on the floor. Gov. Romney.  I'd just note that I don't believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not, and I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives. And the President's statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong. The President.  Governor, that's not true. Gov. Romney.  Let me come back and answer your question. President Bush and I are different people, and these are different times. And that's why my five-point plan is so different than what he would have done. I mean, for instance, we can now, by virtue of new technology, actually get all the energy we need in North America without having to go to the Arabs or the Venezuelans or anyone else. That wasn't true in his time. That's why my policy starts with a very robust policy to get all that energy in North America, become energy secure. Number two, trade: I'll crack down on China. President Bush didn't. I'm also going to dramatically expand trade in Latin America. It's been growing about 12 percent per year over a long period of time. I want to add more free trade agreements so we'll have more trade. Number three, I'm going to get us to a balanced budget. President Bush didn't. President Obama was right: He said that that was outrageous to have deficits as high as half a trillion dollars under the Bush years. He was right. But then, he put in place deficits twice that size for every one of his 4 years, and his forecast for the next 4 years is more deficits almost that large. So that's the next area I'm different than President Bush. And then let's take the last one, championing small business. Our party has been focused on big business too long. I came through small business. I understand how hard it is to start a small business. That's why everything I'll do is designed to help small businesses grow and add jobs. I want to keep their taxes down, on small business. I want regulators to see their job as encouraging small enterprise, not crushing it. And the thing I find most troubling about Obamacare—well, it's a long list—but one of the things I find most troubling is that when you go out and talk to small businesses and ask them what they think about it, they tell you it keeps them from hiring more people. My priority is jobs. I know how to make that happen. And President Bush had a very different path for a very different time. My path is designed in getting small businesses to grow and hire people. Ms. Crowley.  Thanks, Governor. Mr. President. Job Creation/Governor Romney's Policy Agenda/Former President George W. Bush The President.  Well, first of all, I think it's important to tell you that we did come in during some tough times. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month when I started. But we have been digging our way out of policies that were misplaced and focused on the top doing very well and middle class folks not doing well. And we've seen 30 consecutive—31 consecutive months of job growth, 5.2 million new jobs created. And the plans that I talked about will create even more. But when Governor Romney says that he has a very different economic plan, the centerpiece of his economic plan are tax cuts. That's what took us from surplus to deficit. When he talks about getting tough on China, keep in mind that Governor Romney invested in companies that were pioneers of outsourcing to China and is currently investing in countries—in companies that are building surveillance equipment for China to spy on its own folks. That's—Governor, you're the last person who is going to get tough on China. And what we've done when it comes to trade is not only sign three trade deals to open up new markets, but we've also set up a Task Force for trade that goes after anybody who is taking advantage of American workers or businesses and not creating a level playing field. We've brought twice as many cases against unfair trading practices than the previous administration, and we've won every single one that's been decided. When I said that we had to make sure that China was not flooding our domestic market with cheap tires, Governor Romney said I was being protectionist, that it wouldn't be helpful to American workers. Well, in fact, we saved a thousand jobs. And that's the kind of tough trade actions that are required. But the last point I want to make is this: There are some things where Governor Romney is different from George Bush. George Bush didn't propose turning Medicare into a voucher. George Bush embraced comprehensive immigration reform; he didn't call for self-deportation. George Bush never suggested that we eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood. So there are differences between Governor Romney and George Bush, but they're not on economic policy. In some ways, he's gone to a more extreme place when it comes to social policy. And I think that's a mistake. That's not how we're going to move our economy forward. Ms. Crowley.  I want to move you both along to the next question because it's in the same wheelhouse so you will be able to respond. But the President does get this question. I want to call on Michael Jones. The President's Record/Governor Romney's Policy Agenda Q. Mr. President, I voted for you in 2008. What have you done or accomplished to earn my vote in 2012? I'm not that optimistic as I was in 2012. Most things I need for everyday living are very expensive. The President.  Well, we've gone through a tough 4 years, there's no doubt about it. But 4 years ago, I told the American people and I told you I would cut taxes for middle class families, and I did. I told you I'd cut taxes for small businesses, and I have. I said that I'd end the war in Iraq, and I did. I said we'd refocus attention on those who actually attacked us on 9/11, and we have gone after Al Qaida's leadership like never before, and Usama bin Laden is dead. I said that we would put in place health care reform to make sure that insurance companies can't jerk you around and if you don't have health insurance, that you'd have a chance to get affordable insurance, and I have. I committed that I would rein in the excesses of Wall Street, and we passed the toughest Wall Street reforms since the 1930s. We've created 5 million jobs—gone from 800,000 jobs a month being lost—and we are making progress. We saved an auto industry that was on the brink of collapse. Now, does that mean you're not struggling? Absolutely not. A lot of us are. And that's why the plan that I've put forward for manufacturing and education and reducing our deficit in a sensible way, using the savings from ending wars to rebuild America and putting people back to work, making sure that we are controlling our own energy, but not just the energy of today, but also the energy of the future—all those things will make a difference. So the point is, the commitments I've made, I've kept. And those that I haven't been able to keep, it's not for lack of trying, and we're going to get it done in a second term. But you should pay attention to this campaign, because Governor Romney has made some commitments as well, and I suspect he'll keep those too. When Members of the Republican Congress say, we're going to sign a no-tax pledge so that we don't ask a dime from millionaires and billionaires to reduce our deficit so we can still invest in education and helping kids go to college, he said, me too. When they said, we're going to cut Planned Parenthood funding, he said, me too. When they said, we're going to repeal Obamacare—the first thing I'm going to do, despite the fact that it's the same health care plan that he passed in Massachusetts and is working well—he said, me too. That is not the kind of leadership that you need, but you should expect that those are promises he's going to keep. Ms. Crowley.  Mr. President, let me let—— The President.  And the choice in this election is going to be, whose promises are going to be more likely to help you in your life, make sure your kids can go to college, make sure that you are getting a good-paying job, making sure that Medicare and Social Security will be there for you? Ms. Crowley.  Mr. President, thank you. Governor. National Economy/Unemployment Rate Gov. Romney.  I think you know better. I think you know that these last 4 years haven't been so good as the President just described and that you don't feel like you're confident that the next 4 years are going to be much better either. I can tell you that if you were to elect President Obama, you know what you're going to get. You're going to get a repeat of the last 4 years. We just can't afford 4 more years like the last 4 years. He said that by now we'd have unemployment at 5.4 percent. The difference between where it is and 5.4 percent is 9 million Americans without work. I wasn't the one that said 5.4 percent. This was the President's plan; didn't get there. He said he would have by now put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security, because he pointed out they're on the road to bankruptcy. He would reform them. He'd get that done. He hasn't even made a proposal on either one. He said in his first year he'd put out an immigration plan that would deal with our immigration challenges; didn't even file it. This is a President who has not been able to do what he said he'd do. He said that he'd cut in half the deficit. He hasn't done that either; in fact, he doubled it. He said that by now middle income families would have a reduction in their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It's gone up by 2,500 a year. And if Obamacare is passed—or implemented, it's already been passed—if it's implemented fully, it will be another 2,500 on top. The middle class is getting crushed under the policies of a President who has not understood what it takes to get the economy working again. He keeps saying, look, I've created 5 million jobs. That's after losing 5 million jobs. The entire record is such that the unemployment has not been reduced in this country. The unemployment, the number of people who are still looking for work, is still 23 million Americans. There are more people in poverty: one out of six people in poverty. How about food stamps? When he took office, 32 million people were on food stamps. Today, 47 million people are on food stamps. How about the growth of the economy? It's growing more slowly this year than last year and more slowly last year than the year before. The President wants to do well, I understand. But the policies he's put in place, from Obamacare to Dodd-Frank to his tax policies to his regulatory policies, these policies combined have not let this economy take off and grow like it could have. You might say, well, you got an example of when it worked better? Yes. In the Reagan recession, where unemployment hit 10.8 percent, between that period—the end of that recession and the equivalent period of time to today, Ronald Reagan's recovery created twice as many jobs as this President's recovery. Five million jobs doesn't even keep up with our population growth. And the only reason the unemployment rate seems a little lower today is because of all the people that have dropped out of the workforce. The President has tried, but his policies haven't worked. He's great as a speaker and describing his plans and his vision. That's wonderful, except we have a record to look at. And that record shows, he just hasn't been able to cut the deficit, to put in place reforms for Medicare and Social Security to preserve them, to get us the rising incomes we need. Median incomes down $4,300 a family and 23 million Americans out of work, that's what this election is about. It's about who can get the middle class in this country a bright and prosperous future and assure our kids the kind of hope and optimism they deserve. Ms. Crowley.  Governor, I want to move you along. Don't go away, and we'll have plenty of time to respond. We are quite aware of the clock for both of you. But I want to bring in a different subject here. Mr. President, I'll be right back with you. Lorraine Osario has a question for you about a topic we have not heard. The President.  This is for Governor Romney? Ms. Crowley.  Yes, this is for Governor Romney, and we'll be right with you, Mr. President. Thanks. Gov. Romney.  Is it Lorena? Q. Lorraine. Gov. Romney.  Lorraine. Q. Lorraine. Yes. How are you doing? President. Gov. Romney.  Good, thanks. Immigration Reform/Illegal Immigration Q. President. Romney: What do you plan on doing with immigrants without their green card that are currently living here as productive members of society? Gov. Romney.  Thank you, Lorraine. Did I get that right? Good. Thank you for question. And let me step back and tell you what I'd like to do with our immigration policy broadly and include an answer to your question. First of all, this is a nation of immigrants. We welcome people coming to this country as immigrants. My dad was born in Mexico of American parents; Ann's dad was born in Wales and is a first-generation American. We welcome legal immigrants into this country. I want our legal system to work better. I want it to be streamlined. I want it to be clearer. I don't think you have to—shouldn't have to hire a lawyer to figure out how to get into this country legally. I also think that we should give visas to people—green cards, rather, to people who graduate with skills that we need. People around the world with accredited degrees in science and math, get a green card stapled to their diploma; come to the U.S. of A. We should make sure that our legal system works. Number two, we're going to have to stop illegal immigration. There are 4 million people who are waiting in line to get here legally. Those who've come here illegally take their place. So I will not grant amnesty to those who've come here illegally. What I will do is, I'll put in place an employment verification system and make sure that employers that hire people who have come here illegally are sanctioned for doing so. I won't put in place magnets for people coming here illegally. So, for instance, I would not give driver's licenses to those that have come here illegally, as the President would. The kids of those that came here illegally, those kids I think should have a pathway to become a permanent resident of the United States. And military service, for instance, is one way they would have that kind of pathway to become a permanent resident. Now, when the President ran for office, he said that he'd put in place in his first year a piece of legislation—he'd file a bill in his first year—that would reform our immigration system—protect legal immigration, stop illegal immigration. He didn't do it. He had a Democrat House and Democrat Senate, supermajority in both Houses. Why did he fail to even promote legislation that would have provided an answer for those that want to come here legally and for those that are here illegally today? That's a question I think the President will have a chance to answer to answer right now. Immigration Reform/Illegal Immigration The President.  Good, I look forward to it. Was it Lorena? Lorraine. We are a nation of immigrants. I mean, we're just a few miles away from Ellis Island. We all understand what this country has become because talent from all around the world wants to come here: people who are willing to take risks; people who want to build on their dreams and make sure their kids have even bigger dreams than they have. But we're also a nation of laws. So what I've said is, we need to fix a broken immigration system. And I've done everything that I can on my own and sought cooperation from Congress to make sure that we fixed the system. First thing we did was to streamline the legal immigration system to reduce the backlog, make it easier, simpler, and cheaper for people who are waiting in line, obeying the law, to make sure that they can come here and contribute to our country. And that's good for our economic growth. They'll start new businesses. They'll make things happen that create jobs here in the United States. Number two, we do have to deal with our border, so we've put more Border Patrol on than any time in history, and the flow of undocumented workers across the border is actually lower than it's been in 40 years. What I've also said is, if we're going to go after folks who are here illegally, we should do it smartly and go after folks who are criminals, gangbangers, people who are hurting the community, not after students, not after folks who are here just because they're trying to figure out how to feed their families. And that's what we've done. And what I've also said is, for young people who come here, brought here oftentimes by their parents, have gone to school here, pledged allegiance to the flag, think of this as their country, understand themselves as Americans in every way except having papers, then we should make sure that we give them a pathway to citizenship. And that's what I've done administratively. Now, Governor Romney just said that he wants to help those young people too. But during the Republican primary he said, I will veto the "DREAM Act" that would allow these young people to have access. His main strategy during the Republican primary was to say, we're going to encourage self-deportation: making life so miserable on folks that they'll leave. He called the Arizona law a model for the Nation. Part of the Arizona law said that law enforcement officers could stop folks because they suspected, maybe they looked like they might be undocumented workers and check their papers. And you know what? If my daughter or yours looks to somebody like they're not a citizen, I don't want to empower somebody like that. So we can fix this system in a comprehensive way. And when Governor Romney says the challenge is, well, Obama didn't try, that's not true. I sat down with Democrats and Republicans at the beginning of my term, and I said, let's fix this system, including Senators previously who had supported it on the Republican side. But it's very hard for Republicans in Congress to support comprehensive immigration reform if their standard bearer has said that, this is not something I'm interested in supporting. Arizona's Illegal Immigrant Enforcement Legislation/Immigration Reform/Investment in Foreign Firms Ms. Crowley.  Let me get the Governor in here, Mr. President. Let's speak to, if you could, Governor—— Gov. Romney.  Let's—— Ms. Crowley. ——the idea of self-deportation. Gov. Romney.  No, let me go back and speak to the points that the President made, and let's get them correct. I did not say that the Arizona law was a model for the Nation in that aspect. I said that the E-Verify portion of the Arizona law, which is the portion of the law which says that employers could be able to determine whether someone is here illegally or not illegally, that that was a model for the Nation. That's number one. Number two, I asked the President a question, I think, Hispanics and immigrants all over the nation have asked. He was asked this on Univision the other day. Why, when you said you'd file legislation in your first year, didn't you do it? And he didn't answer. He doesn't answer that question. He said the standard bearer wasn't for it. I'm glad you thought I was a standard bearer 4 years ago, but I wasn't. Four years ago, you said in your first year, you would file legislation. In his first year, I was just getting—licking my wounds from having been beaten by John McCain, all right. I was not the standard bearer. My view is that this President should have honored his promise to do as he said. Now, let me mention one other thing, and that is self-deportation says, let people make their own choice. What I was saying is we're not going to round up 12 million people, undocumented illegals, and take them out of the Nation. Instead, let people make their own choice. And if they find that they can't get the benefits here that they want and they can't find the job they want, then they'll make a decision to go a place where they have better opportunities. But I'm not in favor of rounding up people and taking them out of this country. I am in favor, as the President has said—and I agree with him—which is that if people have committed crimes, we've got to get them out of this country. Let me mention something else the President said. It was a moment ago, and I didn't get a chance to—when he was describing Chinese investments and so forth—— The President.  Candy, hold on a second. At some point, we'll pick that up. Gov. Romney.  Mr. President, I'm still speaking. Ms. Crowley.  I'm sorry—— Gov. Romney.  Mr. President, why don't you let me finish—— The President.  Governor Romney, I'm used to being interrupted. I need to make sure—— Gov. Romney.  I'm going to continue. I'm going to continue. The President made—— Ms. Crowley.  Go ahead and finish, Governor Romney. Governor Romney, if you could make it short. See all these people, they've been waiting for you. Could you make it short and then—— Gov. Romney.  Yes, just going to make a point. Any investments I have over the last 8 years have been managed by a blind trust. And I understand they do include investments outside the United States, including in Chinese companies. Mr. President, have you looked at your pension? The President.  Candy—— Gov. Romney.  Have you looked at your pension? The President.  Candy, I've got to say, I mean—— Gov. Romney.  Mr. President, have you looked at your pension? The President.  You know, I don't look at my pension. It's not as big as yours, so it doesn't take as long. [ Laughter ] Gov. Romney.  Let me give you some advice. The President.  I don't check it that often. Gov. Romney.  Look at your pension. You also have investments in Chinese companies. You also have investments outside the United States. You also have investments through a Cayman's trust. Ms. Crowley.  We are sort of way off topic here, Governor Romney. The President.  All right. Candy, we're a little off topic here. Ms. Crowley.  We are completely off immigration. The President.  Come on. I thought we were talking about immigration. Ms. Crowley.  And we've—quickly, Mr. President—— The President.  I do want to make sure—— Ms. Crowley.  If I could have you sit down, Governor Romney. Thank you. Arizona's Illegal Immigrant Enforcement Legislation/Immigration Reform The President.  I do want to make sure that we just understand something. Governor Romney says he wasn't referring to Arizona as a model for the Nation. His top adviser on immigration is the guy who designed the Arizona law, the entirety of it. Not E-Verify, the whole thing. That's his policy. And it's a bad policy. And it won't help us grow. Look, when we think about immigration, we have to understand, there are folks all around the world who still see America as the land of promise. And they provide us energy, and they provide us innovation. And they start companies like Intel and Google, and we want to encourage that. Now, we've got to make sure that we do it in a smart way, in a comprehensive way, and we make the legal system better. But when we make this into a divisive political issue and when we don't have bipartisan support—I can deliver, Governor, a whole bunch of Democrats to get comprehensive immigration reform done, and we can't—— Gov. Romney.  I'll get it done. The President.  We can't—— Gov. Romney.  I'll get it done the first year The President. We can't—we have not seen Republicans serious about this issue at all. Ms. Crowley.  Mr. President, let me move you on here, please. Mr. President—— The President.  And it's time for them to get serious on it. Ms. Crowley.  Don't go away, though. The President.  This used to be a bipartisan issue. Ms. Crowley.  Right. Don't go away, because—— The President.  I'm here. [ Laughter ] Ms. Crowley. ——I want you to talk to Kerry Ladka, who has a—wants to switch a topic for us. The President.  Okay. Hi, Kara. Q. Good evening, Mr. President. The President.  I'm sorry, what's your name? Q. It's Kerry. Kerry Ladka. The President.  Great to see you here. Attack on U.S. Mission in Benghazi, Libya/Terrorism Q. This question actually comes from a brain trust of my friends at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola yesterday. We were sitting around talking about Libya, and we were reading and became aware of reports that the State Department refused extra security for our Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why? The President.  Well, let me, first of all, talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation. And these aren't just representatives of the United States, they're my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm's way. I know these folks, and I know their families. So nobody is more concerned about their safety and security than I am. So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team, and I gave them three instructions. Number one, beef up our security and procedures not just in Libya, but in every Embassy and consulate in the region. Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure that folks are held accountable and it doesn't happen again. And number three, we are going to find out who did this, and we are going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I've said throughout my Presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them. Now, Governor Romney had a very different response. While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release, trying to make political points. And that's not how a Commander in Chief operates. You don't turn national security into a political issue, certainly not right when it's happening. And people—not everybody agrees with some of the decisions I've made, but when it comes to our national security, I mean what I say. I said I'd end the war in Libya—in Iraq, and I did. I said that we'd go after Al Qaida and bin Laden; we have. I said we'd transition out of Afghanistan and start making sure that Afghans are responsible for their own security. That's what I'm doing. And when it comes to this issue, when I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable—and I am ultimately responsible for what's taking place there, because these are my folks, and I'm the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home—you know that I mean what I say. Ms. Crowley.  Mr. President, I've got to move us along. Governor. Attack on U.S. Mission in Benghazi, Libya/National Security Gov. Romney.  Thank you, Kerry, for your question. It's an important one, and I think the President just said correctly that the buck does stop at his desk, and he takes responsibility for that: for the failure in providing those security resources. And those terrible things may well happen from time to time. I feel very deeply sympathetic for the families of those who lost loved ones. And today there's a memorial service for one of those that was lost in this tragedy. We think of their families and care for them deeply. There were other issues associated with this tragedy. There were many days that passed before we knew whether this was a spontaneous demonstration or actually whether it was a terrorist attack. And there was no demonstration involved. It was a terrorist attack. And it took a long time for that to be told to the American people. Whether there was some misleading or, instead, whether we just didn't know what happened, I think you have to ask yourself, why didn't we know 5 days later when the Ambassador to the United Nations went on TV to say that this was a demonstration? How could we have not known? But I find more troubling than this that on the day following the assassination of the United States Ambassador—the first time that's happened since 1979—when we have four Americans killed there, when apparently we didn't know what happened, that the President, the day after that happened, flies to Las Vegas for a political fundraiser, then the next day to Colorado for another event, another political event. I think these actions taken by a President and a leader have symbolic significance and perhaps even material significance in that you'd hope that during that time we could call in the people who were actually eyewitnesses. We've read their accounts now about what happened. It was very clear, this was not a demonstration, this was an attack by terrorists. And this calls into question the President's whole policy in the Middle East. Look what's happening in Syria, in Egypt, now in Libya. Consider the distance between ourselves and Israel. The President said that he was going to put daylight between us and Israel. We have Iran 4 years closer to a nuclear bomb. Syria: Syria is not just the tragedy of 30,000 civilians being killed by a military, but also a strategically significant player for America. The President's policies throughout the Middle East began with an apology tour, and pursue a strategy of leading from behind. And this strategy is unraveling before our very eyes. Ms. Crowley.  Because we're closing in, I want to still get a lot of people in. I want to ask you something, Mr. President, and then have the Governor just quickly. Your Secretary of State, as I'm sure you know, has said that she takes full responsibility for the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi. Does the buck stop with your Secretary of State, as far as what went on here? Attack on U.S. Mission in Benghazi, Libya/The President's Remarks of September 12 The President.  Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job, but she works for me. I'm the President, and I'm always responsible. And that's why nobody is more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I do. The day after the attack, Governor, I stood in the Rose Garden, and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened, that this was an act of terror, and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime. And then, a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families. And the suggestion that anybody in my team—whether the Secretary of State, our U.N. Ambassador, anybody on my team—would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, Governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as President. That's not what I do as Commander in Chief. Ms. Crowley.  Governor, if you want to reply just quickly to this please. Attack on U.S. Mission in Benghazi, Libya/The President's Remarks of September 12 Gov. Romney.  Yes, I certainly do. I certainly do. I think it's interesting the President just said something, which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. The President.  That's what I said. Gov. Romney.  You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration? The President.  Please proceed. Gov. Romney.  Is that what you're saying? The President.  Please proceed, Governor. Gov. Romney.  I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the President 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror. The President.  Get the transcript. Ms. Crowley.  He did, in fact, sir. So let me—call it an act of terror in the Rose Garden. He used the word—— The President.  Can you say that a little louder, Candy? Ms. Crowley.  He did call it an act of terror. It did, as well, take 2 weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that. Gov. Romney.  The administration indicated that this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction. Ms. Crowley.  They did. Gov. Romney.  It took them a long time to say this was a terrorist act by a terrorist group. And to suggest—am I incorrect in that regard? On Sunday, the—your Secretary—— The President.  Candy? Gov. Romney. ——excuse me, the Ambassador to the United Nations went on the Sunday television shows and spoke about how this was a spontaneous reaction. The President.  Candy, I'm happy to have a longer conversation about foreign policy. Ms. Crowley.  Mr. President, let me—I know you—absolutely. But I want to move you on. The President.  Okay, I'm happy to do that too. Ms. Crowley.  And also, people can go to the transcripts and—— The President.  I just want to make sure that—— Ms. Crowley. ——figure out what was said and when. The President. ——all these wonderful folks are going to have a chance to get some of their questions answered. Ms. Crowley.  Because what I want to do, Mr. President, stand there for a second, because I want to introduce you to Nina Gonzalez, who brought up a question that we hear a lot both over the Internet and from this crowd. Second Amendment Rights/Gun Control/Reducing Community Violence Q. President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or plan to do to limit the availability of assault weapons? The President.  We're a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. We've got a long tradition of hunting and sportsmen and people who want to make sure they can protect themselves. But there have been too many instances during the course of my Presidency where I've had to comfort families who have lost somebody, most recently, out in Aurora. Just a couple of weeks ago—actually probably about a month—I saw a mother who I had met at the bedside of her son who had been shot in that theater. And her son had been shot through the head. And we spent some time, and we said a prayer. And remarkably, about 2 months later, this young man and his mom showed up, and he looked unbelievable, good as new. But there were a lot of families who didn't have that good fortune and whose sons or daughters or husbands didn't survive. So my belief is that, A, we have to enforce the laws we've already got, make sure that we're keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We've done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we've got more to do when it comes to enforcement. But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced, but part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence. Because, frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there's an awful lot of violence, and they're not using AK-47s, they're using cheap handguns. And so what can we do to intervene, to make sure that young people have opportunity; that our schools are working; that if there's violence on the streets, that working with faith groups and law enforcement, we can catch it before it gets out of control? And so what I want is a comprehensive strategy. Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. But part of it is also going deeper and seeing if we can get into these communities and making sure we catch violent impulses before they occur. Ms. Crowley.  Governor Romney, the question is about assault weapons, AK-47s. Gun Control/Reducing Community Violence/Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Fast and Furious Program Gov. Romney.  Yes, I'm not in favor of new pieces of legislation on guns and taking guns away or making certain guns illegal. We, of course, don't want to have automatic weapons, and that's already illegal in this country to have automatic weapons. What I believe is, we have to do, as the President mentioned towards the end of his remarks there, which is to make enormous efforts to enforce the gun laws that we have and to change the culture of violence we have. And you ask, how are we going to do that? And there are a number of things. He mentioned good schools. I totally agree. We were able to drive our schools to be number one in the Nation in my State, and I believe if we do a better job in education, we'll give people the hope and opportunity they deserve and perhaps less violence from that. But let me mention another thing, and that is parents. We need moms and dads helping raise kids. Wherever possible, the benefit of having two parents in the home—and that's not always possible, a lot of great single moms, single dads—but gosh, to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone, that's a great idea, because if there's a two-parent family, the prospect of living in poverty goes down dramatically. The opportunities that the child will be able to achieve increase dramatically. So we can make changes in the way our culture works to help bring people away from violence and give them opportunity and bring them in the American system. The greatest failure we've had with regards to gun violence in some respects is what is known as Fast and Furious, which was a program under this administration. And how it worked exactly, I think we don't know precisely, but where thousands of automatic and AK-47-type weapons were given to people that ultimately gave them to drug lords; they used those weapons against their own citizens and killed Americans with them. And this was a program of the Government. For what purpose it was put in place, I can't imagine. But it's one of the great tragedies related to violence in our society which has occurred during this administration, which I think the American people would like to understand fully. It's been investigated to a degree, but the administration has carried out executive privilege to prevent all the information from coming out. I'd like to understand who it was that did this, what the idea was behind it, why it led to the violence. Thousands of guns going to Mexico—— The President.  Candy. Gov. Romney. ——drug lords—— Gun Control/Bipartisanship Ms. Crowley.  Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were banned and are no longer banned. I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts. Obviously, with this question, you no longer do support that. Why is that? Given the kind of violence that we see, sometimes with these mass killings, why is that, that you've changed your mind? Gov. Romney.  Well, Candy, actually, in my State, the pro-gun folks and the anti-gun folks came together and put together a piece of legislation. And it's referred to as an assault weapon ban, but it had, at the signing of the bill, both the pro-gun and the anti-gun people came together because it provided opportunities for both that both wanted. There were hunting opportunities, for instance, that hadn't previously been available and so forth. So it was a mutually agreed-upon piece of legislation. That's what we need more of, Candy. What we have right now in Washington is a place that's gridlocked. Ms. Crowley.  So if I could—if you could get people to agree to it, you'd be for it? The President.  Candy. Gov. Romney.  We haven't had the leadership in Washington to work at a bipartisan basis. I was able to do that in my State and bring these two together. The President.  Candy. Ms. Crowley.  Go ahead, Mr. President. Gun Control/Reducing Community Violence/Education The President.  First of all, I think Governor Romney was for an assault weapons ban before he was against it. And he said that the reason he changed his mind was, in part, because he was seeking the endorsement of the National Rifle Association. So that's on the record. But I think that one area we agree on is the importance of parents and the importance of schools, because I do believe that if our young people have opportunity, then they're less likely to engage in these kind of violent acts. We're not going to eliminate everybody who is mentally disturbed—and we've got to make sure that they don't get weapons—but we can make a difference in terms of ensuring that every young person in America, regardless of where they come from, what they look like, have a chance to succeed. And, Candy, we haven't had a chance to talk about education much, but I think it is very important to understand that the reforms we've put in place, working with 46 Governors around the country, are seeing schools that are some of the ones that are the toughest for kids starting to succeed; we're starting to see gains in math and science. When it comes to community colleges, we are setting up programs, including with Nassau Community College, to retrain workers, including young people who may have dropped out of school, but now are getting another chance, training them for the jobs that exist right now. And in fact, employers are looking for skilled workers, and so we're matching them up, giving them access to higher education. As I said, we have made sure that millions of young people are able to get an education that they weren't able to get before. Now—— Ms. Crowley.  Mr. President, I have to move you along here. The President. But—— Ms. Crowley. You said you wanted to hear this question, so we need to do it here. The President.  Just one second—— Ms. Crowley. One—— The President.  ——because this is important. This is part of the choice in this election. When Governor Romney was asked whether teachers—hiring more teachers was important to growing our economy, Governor Romney said that doesn't grow our economy. When he was asked, is—was class size—— Ms. Crowley.  The question, of course, Mr. President, was guns here, so I need to move us along. The President.  I understand. Ms. Crowley. The question was guns, so let me bring in another—— The President.  But this will make a difference in terms of whether or not we can move this economy forward for these young people—— Ms. Crowley.  I understand. The President.  ——and reduce our violence. Ms. Crowley. Okay. Thank you so much. I want to ask Carol Goldberg to stand up because she gets to a question that both these men have been passionate about. It's for Governor Romney. Global Competitiveness/Chinese Monetary Policy Q. The outsourcing of American jobs overseas has taken a toll on our economy. What plans do you have to put back and keep jobs here in the United States? Gov. Romney.  Boy, great question, an important question, because you're absolutely right. The place where we've seen manufacturing go has been China. China is now the largest manufacturer in the world, used to be the United States of America. A lot of good people have lost jobs. A half a million manufacturing jobs have been lost in the last 4 years; that's total over the last 4 years. One of the reasons for that is that people think it's more attractive in some cases to go offshore than to stay here. We have made it less attractive for enterprises to stay here than to go offshore from time to time. What I will do as President is make sure it's more attractive to come to America again. This is the way we're going to create jobs in this country. It's not by trickle-down government, saying we're going to take more money from people and hire more government workers, raise more taxes, put in place more regulations. Trickle-down government has never worked here, has never worked anywhere. I want to make America the most attractive place in the world for entrepreneurs, for small business, for big business, to invest and grow in America. Now, we're going to have to make sure that as we trade with other nations that they play by the rules, and China hasn't. One of the reasons—or one of the ways they don't play by the rules is artificially holding down the value of their currency. Because if they put their currency down low, that means their prices on their goods are low, and that makes them advantageous in the marketplace. We lose sales, and manufacturers here in the U.S. making the same products can't compete. China has been a currency manipulator for years and years and years. And the President has a regular opportunity to label them as a currency manipulator, but refuses to do so. On day one, I will label China a currency manipulator, which will allow me as President to be able to put in place, if necessary, tariffs where I believe that they are taking unfair advantage of our manufacturers. So we're going to make sure that people we trade with around the world play by the rules. But let me not just stop there. Don't forget: What's key to bringing back jobs here is not just finding someone else to punish—and I'm going to be strict with people who we trade with to make sure they follow the law and play by the rules—but it's also to make America the most attractive place in the world for businesses of all kinds. That's why I want to bring down the tax rates on small employers, big employers, so they want to be here. Canada's tax rate on companies is now 15 percent. Ours is 35 percent. So if you're starting a business, where would you rather start it? We have to be competitive if we're going to create more jobs here. Regulations have quadrupled; the rate of regulations quadrupled under this President. I've talked to small businesses across the country. They say, we feel like we're under attack from our own Government. I want to make sure that regulators see their job as encouraging small business, not crushing it. And there's no question, but that Obamacare has been an extraordinary deterrent to enterprises of all kinds hiring people. My priority is making sure that we get more people hired. If we have more people hired, if we get back manufacturing jobs, if we get back all kinds of jobs into this country, then you're going to see rising incomes again. The reason incomes are down is because unemployment is so high. I know what it takes to get this to happen. And my plan will do that. And one part of it is to make sure that we keep China playing by the rules. Thank you. Ms. Crowley.  Mr. President, 2 minutes here because we are then going to go to our last question. Corporate Tax Reform/Global Competitiveness The President.  We need to create jobs here. And both Governor Romney and I agree actually that we should lower our corporate tax rate. It's too high. But there's a difference in terms of how we would do it. I want to close loopholes that allow companies to deduct expenses when they move to China that allow them to profit offshore and not have to get taxed, so they have tax advantages offshore. All those changes in our Tax Code would make a difference. Now, Governor Romney actually wants to expand those tax breaks. One of his big ideas when it comes to corporate tax reform would be to say if you invest overseas, you make profits overseas, you don't have to pay U.S. taxes. But of course, if you're a small business or a mom-and-pop business or a big business starting up here, you've got to pay even the reduced rate that Governor Romney is talking about. And it's estimated that that will create 800,000 new jobs; the problem is, they'll be in China or India or Germany. That's not the way we're going to create jobs here. The way we're going to create jobs here is not just to change our Tax Code, but also to double our exports. And we are on pace to double our exports, one of the commitments I made when I was President. That's creating tens of thousands of jobs all across the country. That's why we've kept on pushing trade deals, but trade deals that make sure that American workers and American businesses are getting a good deal. Now, Governor Romney talked about China. As I already indicated, in the private sector, Governor Romney's company invested in what were called "pioneers" of outsourcing. That's not my phrase. That's what reporters called it. And as far as currency manipulation, the currency has actually gone up 11 percent since I've been President because we have pushed them hard. And we've put unprecedented trade pressure on China. That's why exports have significantly increased under my Presidency. That's going to help to create jobs here. Ms. Crowley.  Mr. President, we have a really short time for a quick discussion here: iPad, the Macs, the iPhones, they are all manufactured in China. One of the major reasons is labor is so much cheaper here. How do you convince a great American company to bring that manufacturing back here? Chinese Monetary Policy/Global Competitiveness Gov. Romney.  The answer is very straightforward: We can compete with anyone in the world as long as the playing field is level. China has been cheating over the years: one, by holding down the value of their currency; number two, by stealing our intellectual property, our designs, our patents, our technology. There's even an Apple store in China that's a counterfeit Apple store selling counterfeit goods. They hack into our computers. We will have to have people play on a fair basis. That's number one. Number two, we have to make America the most attractive place for entrepreneurs, for people who want to expand a business. That's what brings jobs in. The President's characterization of my tax plan is—— The President.  How much time you got, Candy? Gov. Romney. ——is completely—— Ms. Crowley.  Let me go to the—— Gov. Romney. ——is completely false. Let me tell you. Ms. Crowley.  Let me go to the President here because we really are—— The President.  All right, I'm—— Ms. Crowley. ——because we really are running out of time. And the question is, can we ever get—we can't get wages like that. It can't be sustained here. Manufacturing Industry/Global Competitiveness The President.  Candy, there are some jobs that are not going to come back because they're low-wage, low-skill jobs. I want high-wage, high-skill jobs. That's why we have to emphasize manufacturing. That's why we have to invest in advanced manufacturing. That's why we've got to make sure that we've got the best science and research in the world. And when we talk about deficits, if we're adding to our deficit for tax cuts for folks who don't need them and we're cutting investments in research and science that will create the next Apple, create the next new innovation that will sell products around the world, we will lose that race. If we're not training engineers to make sure that they are equipped here in this country, then companies won't come here. Those investments are what's going to help to make sure that we continue to lead this world economy not just next year, but 10 years from now, 50 years from now, 100 years from now. Ms. Crowley.  Thanks, Mr. President. Gov. Romney.  Government does not create jobs. Ms. Crowley.  Governor Romney. Gov. Romney.  Government does not create jobs. Ms. Crowley.  Governor Romney, I want to introduce you to Barry Green because he's going to have the last question to you first. Gov. Romney.  Barry? Oh, there's Barry. Hi, Barry. 2012 Presidential Election/Perception of Candidates Q. Hi, Governor. I think this is a tough question. Each of you, what do you believe is the biggest misperception that the American people have about you as a man and a candidate? Using specific examples, can you take this opportunity to debunk that misperception and set us straight? Gov. Romney.  Thank you, and that's an opportunity for me, and I appreciate it. In the nature of a campaign, it seems that some campaigns are focused on attacking a person rather than prescribing their own future and the things they'd like to do. In the course of that, I think the President's campaign has tried to characterize me as someone who's very different than who I am. I care about 100 percent of the American people. I want 100 percent of the American people to have a bright and prosperous future. I care about our kids. I understand what it takes to make a bright and prosperous future for America again. I spent my life in the private sector, not in government. I'm a guy who wants to help, with the experience I have, the American people. My passion probably flows from the fact that I believe in God and I believe we're all children of the same God. I believe we have a responsibility to care for one another. I served as a missionary for my church. I served as a pastor in my congregation for about 10 years. I've sat across the table from people who were out of work and worked with them to try and find new work or to help them through tough times. I went to the Olympics when they were in trouble to try and get them on track. And as Governor of my State, I was able to get 100 percent of my people insured, all my kids, about 98 percent of the adults; was able also to get our schools ranked number one in the Nation so 100 percent of our kids would have a bright opportunity for a future. I understand that I can get this country on track again. We don't have to settle for what we're going through. We don't have to settle for gasoline at $4. We don't have to settle for unemployment at a chronically high level. We don't have to settle for 47 million people on food stamps. We don't have to settle for 50 percent of kids coming out of college not able to get work. We don't have to settle for 23 million people struggling to find a good job. If I become President, I'll get America working again. I will get us on track to a balanced budget. The President hasn't. I will. I'll make sure we can reform Medicare and Social Security to preserve them for coming generations. The President said he would. He didn't. Ms. Crowley.  Governor. Gov. Romney.  I'll get our incomes up. And by the way, I've done these things. I served as Governor and showed I could get them done. Ms. Crowley.  Mr. President, last 2 minutes belong to you. The President.  Barry, I think a lot of this campaign, maybe over the last 4 years, has been devoted to this notion that I think government creates jobs, that that somehow is the answer. That's not what I believe. I believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever known. I believe in self-reliance and individual initiative and risk takers being rewarded. But I also believe that everybody should have a fair shot and everybody should do their fair share and everybody should play by the same rules, because that's how our economy is grown. That's how we built the world's greatest middle class. And that is part of what's at stake in this election. There's a fundamentally different vision about how we move our country forward. I believe Governor Romney is a good man, loves his family, cares about his faith. But I also believe that when he said, behind closed doors, that 47 percent of the country considered themselves victims, who refuse personal responsibility, think about who he was talking about: folks on Social Security who have worked all their lives; veterans who have sacrificed for this country; students who are out there trying to, hopefully, advance their own dreams, but also this country's dreams; soldiers who are overseas fighting for us right now; people who are working hard every day, paying payroll tax, gas taxes, but don't make enough income. And I want to fight for them. That's what I've been doing for the last 4 years, because if they succeed, I believe the country succeeds. And when my grandfather fought in World War II and he came back and he got a GI bill and that allowed him to go to college, that wasn't a handout, that was something that advanced the entire country. And I want to make sure that the next generation has those same opportunities. That's why I'm asking for your vote, and that's why I'm asking for another 4 years. Ms. Crowley.  President Obama, Governor Romney, thank you for being here tonight. On that note, we have come to an end of this town hall debate. Our thanks to the participants for their time and to the people of Hofstra University for their hospitality. The next and final debate takes place Monday night at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida. Don't forget to watch. Election day is 3 weeks from today. Don't forget to vote. Goodnight. Source: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/presidential-debate-hempstead-new-york