Search this site

October 05, 2004   [moderated by Gwen Ifill of PBS] IFILL: Good evening from Case Western Reserve University's Veale Center here in Cleveland, Ohio. I'm Gwen Ifill of "The NewsHour" and "Washington Week" on PBS, and I welcome you to the first and the only vice presidential debate between Vice President Dick Cheney, the Republican nominee, and Senator John Edwards, the Democratic nominee. These debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Tonight's will last 90 minutes, following detailed rules of engagement worked out by representatives of the candidates. I have agreed to enforce the rules they have devised for themselves to the best of my ability. The questions tonight will be divided between foreign and domestic policy, but the specific topics were chosen by me. The candidates have not been told what they are. The rules: For each question, there can be only a two- minute response, a 90-second rebuttal and, at my discretion, a discussion extension of one minute. A green light will come on when 30 seconds remain in any given answer, yellow at 15 seconds, red at five seconds, and then flashing red means time's up. There's also a back-up buzzer system, if needed. Candidates may not direct questions to one another. There will be two-minute closing statements, but no opening statements. There is an audience here in the hall, but they have been instructed to remain silent throughout. The order of the first question was determined by the candidates in advance, and the first one goes to Vice President Cheney. Vice President Cheney, there have been new developments in Iraq, especially having to do with the administration's handling. Paul Bremer, the former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, gave a speech in which he said that we have never had enough troops on the ground, or we've never had enough troops on the ground. Donald Rumsfeld said he has not seen any hard evidence of a link between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Was this approved -- of a report that you requested that you received a week ago that showed there was no connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein? CHENEY: Gwen, I want to thank you, and I want to thank the folks here at Case Western Reserve for hosting this tonight. It's a very important event, and they've done a superb job of putting it together. It's important to look at all of our developments in Iraq within the broader context of the global war on terror. And, after 9/11, it became clear that we had to do several things to have a successful strategy to win the global war on terror, specifically that we had to go after the terrorists where ever we might find them, that we also had to go after state sponsors of terror, those who might provide sanctuary or safe harbor for terror. And we also then finally had to stand up democracies in their stead afterwards, because that was the only way to guarantee that these states would not again become safe harbors for terror or for the development of deadly weapons. Concern about Iraq specifically focused on the fact that Saddam Hussein had been, for years, listed on the state sponsor of terror, that they he had established relationships with Abu Nidal, who operated out of Baghdad; he paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; and he had an established relationship with Al Qaida. Specifically, look at George Tenet, the CIA director's testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations two years ago when he talked about a 10-year relationship. The effort that we've mounted with respect to Iraq focused specifically on the possibility that this was the most likely nexus between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. The biggest threat we faced today is the possibility of terrorists smuggling a nuclear weapon or a biological agent into one of our own cities and threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do. If I had it to recommend all over again, I would recommend exactly the same course of action. The world is far safer today because Saddam Hussein is in jail, his government is no longer in power. And we did exactly the right thing. IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds to respond. EDWARDS: Thank you. Thank you, Gwen, for moderating this debate. Thank you to the folks of Case Western and all the people in Ohio for having us here. Mr. Vice President, you are still not being straight with the American people. I mean, the reality you and George Bush continue to tell people, first, that things are going well in Iraq -- the American people don't need us to explain this to them, they see it on their television every single day. We lost more troops in September than we lost in August; lost more in August than we lost in July; lost more in July than we lost in June. The truth is, our men and women in uniform have been heroic. Our military has done everything they've been asked to do. And it's not just me that sees the mess in Iraq. There are Republican leaders, like John McCain, like Richard Lugar, like Chuck Hagel, who have said Iraq is a mess and it's getting worse. And when they were asked why, Richard Lugar said because of the incompetence of the administration. What Paul Bremer said yesterday is they didn't have enough troops to secure the country. They also didn't have a plan to win the peace. They also didn't put the alliances together to make this successful. We need a fresh start. We need a president who will speed up the training of the Iraqis, get more staff in for doing that. We need to speed up the reconstruction so the Iraqis see some tangible benefit. We need a new president who has the credibility, which John Kerry has, to bring others into this effort. IFILL: You have 30 seconds to respond, Mr. Vice President. CHENEY: We've made significant progress in Iraq. We've stood up a new government that's been in power now only 90 days. The notion of additional troops is talked about frequently, but the point of success in Iraq will be reached when we have turned governance over to the Iraqi people; they have been able to establish a democratic government. They're well on their way to doing that. They will have free elections next January for the first time in history. We also are actively, rapidly training Iraqis to take on the security responsibility. Those two steps are crucial to success in Iraq. They're well in hand, well under way. And I'm confident that, in fact, we'll get the job done. IFILL: You have 30 seconds, Senator. EDWARDS: Yes. Mr. Vice President, there is no connection between the attacks of September 11th and Saddam Hussein. The 9/11 Commission has said it. Your own secretary of state has said it. And you've gone around the country suggesting that there is some connection. There is not. And in fact the CIA is now about to report that the connection between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein is tenuous at best. And, in fact, the secretary of defense said yesterday that he knows of no hard evidence of the connection. We need to be straight with the American people. IFILL: Time for a new question but the same topic. And this time to you, Senator Edwards. You and Senator Kerry have said that the war in Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time. Does that mean that if you had been president and vice president that Saddam Hussein would still be in power? EDWARDS: Here's what it means: It means that Saddam Hussein needed to be confronted. John Kerry and I have consistently said that. That's why we voted for the resolution. But it also means it needed to be done the right way. And doing it the right way meant that we were prepared; that we gave the weapons inspectors time to find out what we now know, that in fact there were no weapons of mass destruction; that we didn't take our eye off the ball, which are Al Qaida, Osama bin Laden, the people who attacked us on September the 11th. Now, remember, we went into Afghanistan, which, by the way, was the right thing to do. That was the right decision. And our military performed terrifically there. But we had Osama bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora. We had the 10th Mountain Division up in Uzbekistan available. We had the finest military in the world on the ground. And what did we do? We turned -- this is the man who masterminded the greatest mass murder and terrorist attack in American history. And what did the administration decide to do? They gave the responsibility of capturing and/or killing Saddam -- I mean Osama bin Laden to Afghan warlords who, just a few weeks before, had been working with Osama bin Laden. Our point in this is not complicated: We were attacked by Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden. We went into Afghanistan and very quickly the administration made a decision to divert attention from that and instead began to plan for the invasion of Iraq. And these connections -- I want the American people to hear this very clearly. Listen carefully to what the vice president is saying. Because there is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11th -- period. The 9/11 Commission has said that's true. Colin Powell has said it's true. But the vice president keeps suggesting that there is. There is not. And, in fact, any connection with Al Qaida is tenuous at best. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds to respond. CHENEY: The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11, but there's clearly an established Iraqi track record with terror. And the point is that that's the place where you're most likely to see the terrorists come together with weapons of mass destruction, the deadly technologies that Saddam Hussein had developed and used over the years. Now, the fact of the matter is, the big difference here, Gwen, is they are not prepared to deal with states that sponsor terror. They've got a very limited view about how to use U.S. military forces to defend America. We heard Senator Kerry say the other night that there ought to be some kind of global test before U.S. troops are deployed preemptively to protect the United States. That's part of a track record that goes back to the 1970s when he ran for Congress the first time and said troops should not be deployed without U.N. approval. Then, in the mid-'80s, he ran on the basis of cutting most of our major defense programs. In 1991, he voted against Desert Storm. It's a consistent pattern over time of always being on the wrong side of defense issues. A little tough talk in the midst of a campaign or as part of a presidential debate cannot obscure a record of 30 years of being on the wrong side of defense issues. And they give absolutely no indication, based on that record, of being wiling to go forward and aggressively pursue the war on terror with a kind of strategy that will work, that will defeat our enemies and will guarantee that the United States doesn't again get attacked by the likes of Al Qaida. IFILL: You will respond to that topic, but first I want to ask you for two minutes, Vice President Cheney. Tonight we mentioned Afghanistan. We believe that Osama bin Laden is hiding perhaps in a cave somewhere along the Afghan-Pakistan border. If you get a second term, what is your plan to capture him and then to neutralize those who have sprung up to replace him? CHENEY: Gwen, we've never let up on Osama bin Laden from day one. We've actively and aggressively pursued him. We've captured or killed thousands of Al Qaida in various places around the world and especially in Afghanistan. We'll continue to very aggressively pursue him, and I'm confident eventually we'll get him. The key to success in Afghanistan has been, again, to go in and go after the terrorists, which we've done, and also take down the Taliban regime which allowed them to function there, in effect sponsors, if you will, of the Al Qaida organization. John Edwards, two and a half years ago, six months after we went into Afghanistan announced that it was chaotic, the situation was deteriorating, the warlords were about to take over. Here we are, two and a half years later, we're four days away from a democratic election, the first one in history in Afghanistan. We've got 10 million voters who have registered to vote, nearly half of them women. That election will put in place a democratically elected government that will take over next December. We've made enormous progress in Afghanistan, in exactly the right direction, in spite of what John Edwards said two and a half years ago. He just got it wrong. The fact is, as we go forward in Afghanistan, we will pursue Osama bin Laden and the terrorists as long as necessary. We're standing up Afghan security forces so they can take on responsibility for their own security. We'll keep U.S. forces there -- we have about 16,000 there today -- as long as necessary, to assist the Afghans in terms of dealing with their security situation. But they're making significant progress. We have President Karzai, who is in power. They have done wonders writing their own constitution for the first time ever. Schools are open. Young girls are going to school. Women are going to vote. Women are even eligible to run for office. This is major, major progress. There will be democracy in Afghanistan, make no doubt about it. Freedom is the best antidote to terror. IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds. EDWARDS: Someone did get it wrong. But it wasn't John Kerry and John Edwards. They got it wrong. When we had Osama bin Laden cornered, they left the job to the Afghan warlords. They then diverted their attention from the very people who attacked us, who were at the center of the war on terror, and so Osama bin Laden is still at large. Now, I want to go back to something the vice president said just a minute ago, because these distortions are continuing. He said that -- made mention of this global test. What John Kerry said -- and it's just as clear as day to anybody who was listening -- he said: We will find terrorists where they are and kill them before they ever do harm to the American people, first. We will keep this country safe. He defended this country as a young man, he will defend this country as president of the United States. He also said very clearly that he will never give any country veto power over the security of the United States of America. Now, I know the vice president would like to pretend that wasn't said, and the president would too. But the reality is it was said. Here's what's actually happened in Afghanistan, regardless of this rosy scenario that they paint on Afghanistan, just like they do with Iraq. What's actually happened is they're now providing 75 percent of the world's opium. Not only are they providing 75 percent of the world's opium, large-cut parts of the country are under the control of drug lords and warlords. Big parts of the country are still insecure. And the reality is the part of Afghanistan, eastern Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is, is one of the hardest places to control and the most insecure, Gwen. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, 30 seconds. CHENEY: Twenty years ago we had a similar situation in El Salvador. We had -- guerrilla insurgency controlled roughly a third of the country, 75,000 people dead, and we held free elections. I was there as an observer on behalf of the Congress. The human drive for freedom, the determination of these people to vote, was unbelievable. And the terrorists would come in and shoot up polling places; as soon as they left, the voters would come back and get in line and would not be denied the right to vote. And today El Salvador is a whale of a lot better because we held free elections. The power of that concept is enormous. And it will apply in Afghanistan, and it will apply as well in Iraq. EDWARDS: The vice president just said that we should focus on state sponsors of terrorism. Iran has moved forward with its nuclear weapons program. They're more dangerous today than they were four years ago. North Korea has moved forward with their nuclear weapons program, gone from one to two nuclear weapons to six to eight nuclear weapons. This vice president has been an advocate for over a decade for lifting sanctions against Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism on the planet. It's a mistake. We should not only not lift them, we should strengthen those sanctions. IFILL: New question to you, Senator Edwards, but I don't want to let go of the global test question first, because... EDWARDS: Sure. IFILL: ... I want people to understand exactly what it is, as you said, that Senator Kerry did say. He said, "You've got to do" -- you know, he was asked about preemptive action at the last debate -- he said, "You've got to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." What is a global test if it's not a global veto? EDWARDS: Well, let me say, first, he said in the same segment -- I don't remember precisely where it was connected with what you just read -- but he said, point blank, "We will never give anyone a veto over the security of the United States of America." What he's saying is we're going to go back to the proud tradition of the United States of America and presidents of the United States of America for the last 50 to 75 years. First, we're going to actually tell the American people the truth. We're going to tell them the truth about what's happening. We're not going to suggest to them that things are going well in Iraq or anyplace else when, in fact, they're not. We're going to make sure that the American people know the truth about why we are using force and what the explanation for it is. And it's not just the American people. We're also going to make sure that we tell the world the truth. Because the reality is, for America to lead, for America to do what it's done for 50 years before this president and vice president came into office, it is critical that we be credible. It is critical that they believe that when America takes action, they can trust what we're doing, what we say, what we say at the United Nations, what we say in direct conversations with leaders of the world -- of other countries. They need to know that the credibility of the United States is always good, because they will not follow us without that. And unfortunately, we're seeing the consequences of that right now. It's one of the reasons that we're having so much difficulty getting others involved in the effort in Iraq. You know, we've taken 90 percent of the coalition causalities. American taxpayers have borne 90 percent of the costs of the effort in Iraq. And we see the result of there not being a coalition: The first Gulf war cost America $5 billion. We're at $200 billion and counting. John Kerry will never give up control over the security of the United States of America to any other country. We will not outsource our responsibility to keep this country safe. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds to respond. CHENEY: Well, Gwen, the 90 percent figure is just dead wrong. When you include the Iraqi security forces that have suffered casualties, as well as the allies, they've taken almost 50 percent of the casualties in operations in Iraq, which leaves the U.S. with 50 percent, not 90 percent. With respect to the cost, it wasn't $200 billion. You probably weren't there to vote for that. But $120 billion is, in fact, what has been allocated to Iraq. The rest of it's for Afghanistan and the global war on terror. The allies have stepped forward and agreed to reduce and forgive Iraqi debt to the tune of nearly $80 billion by one estimate. That, plus $14 billion they promised in terms of direct aid, puts the overall allied contribution financially at about $95 billion, not to the $120 billion we've got, but, you know, better than 40 percent. So your facts are just wrong, Senator. You also have a situation where you talk about credibility. It's awfully hard to convey a sense of credibility to allies when you voted for the war and then you declared: Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. You voted for the war, and then you voted against supporting the troops when they needed the equipment, the fuel, the spare parts and the ammunition and the body armor. You're not credible on Iraq because of the enormous inconsistencies that John Kerry and you have cited time after time after time during the course of the campaign. Whatever the political pressures of the moment requires, that's where you're at. But you've not been consistent, and there's no indication at all that John Kerry has the conviction to successfully carry through on the war on terror. EDWARDS: May I respond briefly? What the vice president has just said is just a complete distortion. The American people saw John Kerry on Thursday night. They don't need the vice president or the president to tell them what they saw. They saw a man who was strong, who had conviction, who is resolute, who made it very clear that he will do everything that has to be done to find terrorists, to keep the American people safe. He laid out his plan for success in Iraq, made it clear that we were committed to success in Iraq. We have to be, because we have troops on the ground there and because they have created a haven for terrorists. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 30 seconds. CHENEY: Your rhetoric, Senator, would be a lot more credible if there was a record to back it up. There isn't. And you cannot use "talk tough" during the course of a 90-minute debate in a presidential campaign to obscure a 30-year record in the United States Senate and, prior to that by John Kerry, who has consistently come down on the wrong side of all the major defense issues that he's faced as a public official. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, a new question for you. You have two minutes to respond. When the president says that Senator Kerry is emboldening enemies and you say that we could get hit again if voters make the wrong choice in November, are you saying that it would be a dangerous thing to have John Kerry as president? CHENEY: I'm saying specifically that I don't believe he has the qualities we need in a commander in chief because I don't think, based on his record, that he would pursue the kind of aggressive policies that need to be pursued if we're going to defeat these terrorists. We need to battle them overseas so we don't have to battle them here at home. I'm not challenging John Kerry's patriotism. I said in my acceptance speech in New York City at the Republican convention that we respected his service in Vietnam, and I got applause for that. We've never criticized his patriotism. What we've questioned is his judgment. And his judgment's flawed, and the record's there for anybody who wants to look at it. In 1984, when he ran for the Senate he opposed, or called for the elimination of a great many major weapons systems that were crucial to winning the Cold War and are important today to our overall forces. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and occupied it in 1990 and '91, he stood up on the floor of the Senate and voted against going in to liberate Kuwait and push Saddam Hussein back to Iraq. The problem we have is that, if you look at his record, he doesn't display the qualities of somebody who has conviction. And with respect to this particular operation, we've seen a situation in which, first, they voted to commit the troops, to send them to war, John Edwards and John Kerry, then they came back and when the question was whether or not you provide them with the resources they needed -- body armor, spare parts, ammunition -- they voted against it. I couldn't figure out why that happened initially. And then I looked and figured out that what was happening was Howard Dean was making major progress in the Democratic primaries, running away with the primaries based on an anti-war record. So they, in effect, decided they would cast an anti-war vote and they voted against the troops. Now if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaida? IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds to respond. EDWARDS: Thank you. One thing that's very clear is that a long resume does not equal good judgment. I mean, we've seen over and over and over the misjudgments made by this administration. I want to go back to what the vice president just said, because it's a continuation of the things he's been doing, unfortunately, on the campaign trail; it's a continuation of what he began his first answer with tonight. John Kerry has voted for the biggest military appropriations bill in the country's history. John Kerry has voted for the biggest intelligence appropriations in the country's history. This vice president, when he was secretary of defense, cut over 80 weapons systems, including the very ones he's criticizing John Kerry for voting against. These are weapons systems, a big chunk of which, the vice president himself suggested we get rid of after the Cold War. The reality is that John Kerry has consistently supported the very men that he served with in Vietnam and led. On the $87 billion, it was clear at the time of that vote that they had no plan to win the peace. We're seeing the consequences of that everyday on the ground right now. We stood up and said: For our troops, we must have a plan to win the peace. We also thought it was wrong to have a $20 billion fund out of which $7.5 billion was going to go to a no-bid contract for Halliburton, the vice president's former company. It was wrong then. It's wrong now. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 30 seconds. CHENEY: Well, Gwen, I think the record speaks for itself. These are two individuals who have been for the war when the headlines were good and against it when their poll ratings were bad. We have not seen the kind of consistency that a commander in chief has to have in order to be a leader in wartime and in order to be able to see the strategy through to victory. If we want to win the war on terror, it seems to me it's pretty clear the choice is George Bush, not John Kerry. IFILL: And 30 seconds... EDWARDS: John Kerry has been absolutely clear and consistent from the beginning that we must stay focused on the people who attacked us; that Saddam Hussein was a threat that needed to be addressed directly; that the weapons inspectors needed to have time to do their job. Had they had time to do their job, they would have discovered what we now know, that in fact Saddam Hussein had no weapons, that in fact Saddam Hussein has no connection with 9/11, that in fact Saddam Hussein has little or no connection with Al Qaida. IFILL: Senator Edwards, new question to you, and you have two minutes to respond. Part of what you have said and Senator Kerry has said that you are going to do in order to get us out of the problems in Iraq is to internationalize the effort. Yet French and German officials have both said they have no intention even if John Kerry is elected of sending any troops into Iraq for any peacekeeping effort. Does that make your effort or your plan to internationalize this effort seem kind of naive? EDWARDS: Well, let's start with what we know. What we know is that the president and the vice president have not done the work to build the coalition that we need -- dramatically different than the first Gulf War. We know that they haven't done it, and we know they can't do it. They didn't, by the way, just reject the allies going into lead- up to the war. They also rejected them in the effort to do the reconstruction in Iraq, and that has consequences. What we believe is, as part of our entire plan for Iraq -- and we have a plan for Iraq. They have a plan for Iraq too: more of the same. We have a plan for success. And that plan includes speeding up the training of the military. We have less than half of the staff that we need there to complete that training. Second, make sure that the reconstruction is sped up in a way that the Iraqis see some tangible benefit for what's happening. And by the way, if we need to, we can take Iraqis out of Iraq to train them. It is not secure enough. It's so dangerous on the ground that they can't be trained there. We can take them out of Iraq for purposes of training. We should do whatever has to be done to train the Iraqis and to speed up that process. That works in conjunction with making sure the elections take place on time. Right now, the United Nations, which is responsible for the elections in January, has about 35 people there. Now, that's compared with a much smaller country like East Timor, where they had over 200 people on the ground. You need more than 35 people to hold an election in Cleveland, much less in Iraq. And they keep saying the election's on schedule, this is going to happen. The reality is we need a new president with credibility with the rest of the world and who has a real plan for success. Success breeds contribution, breeds joining the coalition. Not only that, I want to go back to what the vice president said. He attacks us about the troops. They sent 40,000 American troops into Iraq without the body armor they needed. They sent them without the armored vehicles they needed. While they were on the ground fighting, they lobbied the Congress to cut their combat pay. This is the height of hypocrisy. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds. CHENEY: Well, Gwen, it's hard to know where to start; there are so many inaccuracies there. The fact of the matter is the troops wouldn't have what they have today if you guys had had your way. You talk about internationalizing the effort. They don't have a plan. Basically, it's an echo. You made the comment that the Gulf War coalition in '91 was far stronger than this. No. We had 34 countries then; we've got 30 today. We've got troops beside us. It's hard, after John Kerry referred to our allies as a coalition of the coerced and the bribed, to go out and persuade people to send troops and to participate in this process. You end up with a situation in which -- talk about demeaning. In effect, you demean the sacrifice of our allies when you say it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and oh, by the way, send troops. Makes no sense at all. It's totally inconsistent. There isn't a plan there. Our most important ally in the war on terror, in Iraq specifically, is Prime Minister Allawi. He came recently and addressed a joint session of Congress that I presided over with the speaker of the House. And John Kerry rushed out immediately after his speech was over with, where he came and he thanked America for our contributions and our sacrifice and pledged to hold those elections in January, went out and demeaned him, criticized him, challenged his credibility. That is not the way to win friends and allies. You're never going to add to the coalition with that kind of attitude. IFILL: Senator Edwards, 30 seconds. EDWARDS: Thank you. The vice president suggests that we have the same number of countries involved now that we had in the first Gulf War. The first Gulf War cost the American people $5 billion. And regardless of what the vice president says, we're at $200 billion and counting. Not only that, 90 percent of the coalition casualties, Mr. Vice President, the coalition casualties, are American casualties. Ninety percent of the cost of this effort are being borne by American taxpayers. It is the direct result of the failures of this administration. IFILL: Mr. Vice President? CHENEY: Classic example. He won't count the sacrifice and the contribution of Iraqi allies. It's their country. They're in the fight. They're increasingly the ones out there putting their necks on the line to take back their country from the terrorists and the old regime elements that are still left. They're doing a superb job. And for you to demean their sacrifices strikes me as... EDWARDS: Oh, I'm not... CHENEY: ... as beyond... EDWARDS: I'm not demeaning... CHENEY: It is indeed. You suggested... EDWARDS: No, sir, I did not... CHENEY: ... somehow they shouldn't count, because you want to be able to say that the Americans are taking 90 percent of the sacrifice. You cannot succeed in this effort if you're not willing to recognize the enormous contribution the Iraqis are increasingly making to their own future. We'll win when they take on responsibility for governance, which they're doing, and when the take on responsibility for their own security, which they increasingly are doing. IFILL: New question, similar topic, because I want to circle back to a question which I'm not quite certain we got an answer to. But I will direct it to you first, Senator Edwards. EDWARDS: Thanks. IFILL: It's a question of American intelligence. If this report that we've read about today is true, and if Vice President Cheney ordered it and asked about this, do you think that, in the future, that your administration or the Bush administration would have sufficient and accurate enough intelligence to be able to make decisions about where to go next? EDWARDS: Well, let me speak, first of all, to what the vice president just said, and then I'll answer that question. This, unfortunately -- what the vice president is telling people is inconsistent with everything they see every single day. It's a continuation of, "Well, there's a strong connection between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein." It's not true. It's a continuation of at least insinuating that there's some connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. It's not true. It's saying to the American people, as the president said last Thursday, and the vice president continues to say tonight, that things are going well in Iraq, contrary to what people who have been there have seen, including Republican leaders, contrary to what everyone in America sees on their television every day -- Americans being kidnapped, people being beheaded, parts of the country under the control of insurgents, even today, under the control of the insurgents. The vice president has still not said anything about what Mr. Bremer said, about the failure to have adequate troops, the failure to be able to secure the country in the short term. You know, remember "shock and awe"? Look at where we are now. It is a direct result of the failure to plan, the failure to have others involved in this effort. This is not an accident. Now, let me go back to your question. If we want to do the things that need to be done to keep this country safe, we can't be dragged kicking and screaming to it. One thing that everybody does agree on is that 9/11 did change things. But what's happened is this administration opposed the creation of a 9/11 Commission to find out why it happened and what we needed to do. They opposed the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, and then they were for it. We can't react that way. We must be more aggressive. With John Kerry as president of the United States, we are committed to immediately implementing all of the reforms suggested by the 9/11 Commission, so that we have the information we need to find terrorists and crush them before hey hurt us. IFILL: Mr. Vice President? CHENEY: Gwen, the story that appeared today about this report is one I asked for. I ask an awful lot of questions as part of my job as vice president. A CIA spokesman was quoted in that story as saying they had not yet reached the bottom line and there is still debate over this question of the relationship between Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein. The report also points out that at one point some of Zarqawi's people were arrested. Saddam personally intervened to have them released, supposedly at the request of Zarqawi But let's look at what we know about Mr. Zarqawi. We know he was running a terrorist camp, training terrorists in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. We know that when we went into Afghanistan that he then migrated to Baghdad. He set up shop in Baghdad, where he oversaw the poisons facility up at Kermal (ph), where the terrorists were developing ricin and other deadly substances to use. We know he's still in Baghdad today. He is responsible for most of the major car bombings that have killed or maimed thousands of people. He's the one you will see on the evening news beheading hostages. He is, without question, a bad guy. He is, without question, a terrorist. He was, in fact, in Baghdad before the war, and he's in Baghdad now after the war. The fact of the matter is that this is exactly the kind of track record we've seen over the years. We have to deal with Zarqawi by taking him out, and that's exactly what we'll do. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, in June of 2000 when you were still CEO of Halliburton, you said that U.S. businesses should be allowed to do business with Iran because, quote, "Unilateral sanctions almost never work." After four years as vice president now, and with Iran having been declared by your administration as part of the "Axis of Evil," do you still believe that we should lift sanctions on Iran? CHENEY: No, I do not. And, Gwen, at the time, I was talking specifically about this question of unilateral sanctions. What happens when we impose unilateral sanctions is, unless there's a collective effort, then other people move in and take advantage of the situation and you don't have any impact, except to penalize American companies. We've got sanctions on Iran now. We may well want to go to the U.N. Security Council and ask for even tougher sanctions if they don't live up to their obligations under the initial -- International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Proliferation Treaty. We dealt with Iran differently than we have Iraq partly because Iran has not yet, as Iraq did, violated 12 years of resolutions by the U.N. Security Council. We're working with the Brits and the Germans and the French, who've been negotiating with the Iranians. We recently were actively involved in a meeting with the board of governors in the International Atomic Energy Agency. And as I say, there will be a follow-up meeting in November to determine whether or not Iran's living up to their commitments and obligations. And if they aren't, my guess is then the board of governors will recommend sending the whole matter to the U.N. Security Council for the application of the international sanctions, which I think would be exactly the right way to go. We're addressing North Korea on a similar basis, working with the Chinese, the South Koreans, the Japanese and others to try to bring them around. One of the great by-products, for example, of what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan is that five days after we captured Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi in Libya came forward and announced that he was going to surrender all of his nuclear materials to the United States, which he has done. This was one of the biggest sources of proliferation in the world today in terms of the threat that was represented by that. The suppliers network that provided that, headed by Mr. A.Q. Khan, has been shut down. We've made major progress in dealing here with a major issue with respect to nuclear proliferation. And we'll continue to press very hard on the North Koreans and the Iranians as well. IFILL: Senator Edwards? EDWARDS: Well, the vice president talks about there being a member, or someone associated with Al Qaida, in Iraq. There are 60 countries who have members of Al Qaida in them. How many of those countries are we going to invade? Not only that, he talks about Iran. The reality about Iran is that Iran has moved forward with their nuclear weapons program on their watch. They ceded responsibility to dealing with it to the Europeans. Now, the vice president, as you pointed out, spoke out loudly for lifting the sanctions on Iraq. John Kerry and I believe we need to strengthen the sanctions on Iraq, including closing the loophole that allows companies to use a subsidiary, offshore subsidiaries to do business with Iran. I mentioned Halliburton a few minute ago in connection with the $87 billion, and you raised it in this question. This is relevant, because he was pushing for lifting sanctions when he was CEO of Halliburton. Here's why we didn't think Halliburton should have a no-bid contract. While he was CEO of Halliburton, they paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false information on their company, just like Enron and Ken Lay. They did business with Libya and Iran, two sworn enemies of the United States. They're now under investigation for having bribed foreign officials during that period of time. Not only that, they've gotten a $7.5 billion no-bid contract in Iraq, and instead of part of their money being withheld, which is the way it's normally done, because they're under investigation, they've continued to get their money. IFILL: Mr. Vice President? CHENEY: I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take more than 30 seconds. IFILL: Well, that's all you've got. (LAUGHTER) CHENEY: Well, the reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they're trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false. They know that if you go, for example, to factcheck.com (sic), an independent Web site sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details with respect to Halliburton. It's an effort that they've made repeatedly to try to confuse the voters and to raise questions, but there's no substance to the charges. IFILL: Thirty seconds. EDWARDS: These are the facts. The facts are the vice president's company that he was CEO of, that did business with sworn enemies of the United States, paid millions of dollars in fines for providing false financial information, it's under investigation for bribing foreign officials. The same company that got a $7.5 billion no-bid contract, the rule is that part of their money is supposed to be withheld when they're under investigation, as they are now, for having overcharged the American taxpayer, but they're getting every dime of their money. I'm happy to let voters make their own decision about this. IFILL: Senator Edwards, as we wrap up the foreign policy part of this, I do want to talk to you about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Today, a senior member of Islamic Jihad was killed in Gaza. There have been suicide bombings, targeted assassinations, mortar attacks, all of this continuing at a time when the United States seems absent in the peace-making process. What would your administration do? First of all, do you agree that the United States is absent? Maybe you don't. But what would your administration do to try to resolve that conflict? EDWARDS: Well, first of all, I do agree that we've been largely absent, not entirely absent, but largely absent from the peace-making process over the last four years. And let me just say a couple of preliminary things and then talk about where we are now. First, the Israeli people not only have the right to defend themselves, they should defend themselves. They have an obligation to defend themselves. I mean, if I can, just for a moment, tell you a personal story. I was in Jerusalem a couple of years ago, actually three years ago, in August of 2001, staying at the King David Hotel. We left in the morning, headed to the airport to leave, and later in the day I found out that that same day, not far from where we were staying, the Sbarro Pizzeria was hit by a suicide bomber in Jerusalem. Fifteen people were killed. Six children were killed. What are the Israeli people supposed to do? How can they continue to watch Israeli children killed by suicide bombers, killed by terrorists? They have not only the right to the obligation to defend themselves. Now, we know that the prime minister has made a decision, an historic decision, to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza. It's important for America to participate in helping with that process. Now, if Gaza's being used as a platform for attacking the Israeli people, that has to be stopped. And Israel has a right to defend itself. They don't have a partner for peace right now. They certainly don't have a partner in Arafat, and they need a legitimate partner for peace. And I might add, it is very important for America to crack down on the Saudis who have not had a public prosecution for financing terrorism since 9/11. And it's important for America to confront the situation in Iran, because Iran is an enormous threat to Israel and to the Israeli people. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, 90 seconds. CHENEY: Gwen, I want to go back to the last comment, and then I'll come back to Israel-Palestine. The reason they keep trying to attack Halliburton is because they want to obscure their own record. And Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that's not very distinguished. You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee. You've missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform. Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate. Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight. In respect to Israel and Palestine, Gwen, the suicide bombers, in part, were generated by Saddam Hussein, who paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. I personally think one of the reasons that we don't have as many suicide attacks today in Israel as we've had in the past is because Saddam is no longer in business. We've been strong supporters of Israel. The president stepped forward and put in place a policy basically that said we will support the establishment of two states. First president ever to say we'll establish and support a Palestinian state next door to Israelis. But first, there has to be an interlocutor you can trust and deal with. And we won't have that, we don't have it now, in a Yasser Arafat. There has to be reform of the Palestinian system. IFILL: Senator Edwards, it's your turn to use 30 seconds for a complicated response... EDWARDS: That was a complete distortion of my record. I know that won't come as a shock. The vice president, I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors. He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa. It's amazing to hear him criticize either my record or John Kerry's. IFILL: Thirty seconds. CHENEY: Oh, I think his record speaks for itself. And frankly, it's not very distinguished. IFILL: In that case, we'll move on to domestic matters. And this question, I believe, goes to Senator -- to Vice President Cheney. The Census Bureau... CHENEY: I think it goes to Senator Edwards. IFILL: It goes to the Senator. I see you. I just asked him about Israel, even though we didn't actually talk about it much. CHENEY: I concede the point. (LAUGHTER) EDWARDS: No, I did talk about it, Israel. He's the one who didn't talk about it. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, the Census Bureau ranked Cleveland as the biggest poor city in the country, 31 percent jobless rate. You two gentlemen are pretty well off. You did well for yourselves in the private sector. What can you tell the people of Cleveland, or people of cities like Cleveland, that your administration will do to better their lives? CHENEY: Well, Gwen, there are several things that I think need to be done and are being done. We've, of course, been through a difficult recession, and then the aftermath of 9/11, where we lost over a million jobs after that attack. But we think the key is to address some basic, fundamental issues that the president's already working on. I think probably the most successful thing we can do with respect to ending poverty is to get people jobs. There's no better antidote to poverty than a good, well-paying job that allows somebody to take care of their own family. To do that, we have to make America the best place in the world to do business. And that means we've got to deal effectively with tax policy. We've got to reduce the litigation costs that are built into our society. We've got to provide the adequate medical care and make certain that we can, in fact, create the opportunities that are vital to that process. I'd zero in, in particular, on education. I think the most important thing we can do is have a first-class public school system. I'm a product of public schools. And the president, his first legislative priority was the No Child Left Behind Act. It was the first piece of legislation we introduced. We got it passed that first summer on a bipartisan basis. We even had Ted Kennedy on board for the effort. And it does several things. It establishes high standards. It, at the same time, sets up a system of testing with respect to our school system, so we can establish accountability to parents and make certain that they understand how well their students are doing. And they have the opportunity to move students out of poorly performing schools to good schools. It strikes me that that is absolutely the heart of what needs to be done from the standpoint of education. It's also important, as we go forward in the next term, we want to be able to take what we've done for elementary education and move it into the secondary education. It's working. We've seen reports now of a reduction in the achievement gap between majority students and minority students. We're making significant progress. IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds. EDWARDS: Gwen, your question was about jobs? IFILL: It was about jobs, and it was about poverty. EDWARDS: I thought it was about jobs and poverty. I hope we get a chance to talk about education, but that's what the vice president talked about. Here's what's happened: In the time that they have been in office, in the last four years, 1.6 million private sector jobs have been lost, 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. And it's had real consequences in places like Cleveland. Cleveland is a wonderful, distinguished city that's done a lot of great things, but it has the highest poverty rate in the country. One out of almost two children in Cleveland are now living in poverty. During the time that the vice president and the president have been in office, 4 million more Americans have fallen into poverty. During the time that the vice president and the president have been in office, 4 million more Americans have fallen into poverty. And what the most striking and startling thing is, they are the first presidency in 70 years -- and I'm talking Democrats, Republican, presidents who led us through World War, through the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Cold War -- every one of them created jobs until this president. We have to do better. We have a plan. We're going to get rid of -- by the way, they're for outsourcing jobs. I want to make sure people hear that, the fundamental difference with us. The administration says over and over that the outsourcing of millions of American jobs is good. We're against it. We want to get rid of tax cuts for companies sending jobs overseas. We want to balance this budget, get back to fiscal responsibility. And we want to invest in the creative, innovative jobs of the future. IFILL: Mr. Vice President? CHENEY: Gwen, we've got 111 million American taxpayers that have benefited from our income tax cuts. We've got 33 million students who've benefited from No Child Left Behind. We've got 40 million seniors who benefited from the reform of the Medicare system. The Democrats promised prescription drug benefits. For years they've run on that platform. They never got it done. The president got it done. We also dropped 5 million people totally off the federal income tax rolls, so they no longer have to pay any federal income tax at all. So the story, I think, is a good one. And the data he's using is old data. It's from 2003. It doesn't include any of the gains that we've made in the last years. We've added 1.7 million jobs to the economy. IFILL: Thirty seconds. EDWARDS: The vice president and president like to talk about their experience on the campaign trail. Millions of people have lost their jobs. Millions have fallen into poverty. Family incomes are down, while the cost of everything is going up. Medical costs are up the highest they've ever been over the last four years. We have this mess in Iraq. Mr. Vice President, I don't think the country can take four more years of this kind of experience. IFILL: This next question goes to you, Senator Edwards. Senator Kerry said in a recent interview that he absolutely will not raise taxes on anyone under -- who earns under $200,000 a year. How can he guarantee that and also cut the deficit in half, as he's promised? EDWARDS: Because we will do what they've not done. You know, if you look at what's happened over the last four years, we have gone from a $5 trillion projected surplus when George Bush took office to a $3 trillion projected deficit. They promised they were going to put $2 trillion of the surplus aside from Social Security. Not done. Not only that, it's the biggest fiscal turnaround in American history. And there's no end in sight. The Washington Post just reported they have several trillion dollars of additional tax cuts and spending, no suggestion of what they're going to do about it. John Kerry and I believe we have a moral responsibility not to leave trillions of debt to our children and our grandchildren. So here's what we're going to do, to answer you question. To pay for the things that we believe need to be done -- and I hope to get the chance to talk about health care and also about education, because we have plans on both of those subjects -- what we're going to do is roll back tax cuts. And I want everyone to hear this, because there have been exaggerations made on the campaign trail: Roll back tax cuts for people who make over $200,000 a year; we will do that. We want to keep the tax cuts that are in place for people who make less than $200,000 a year and give additional tax cuts to those middle-class families, tax cuts for health care, tax cuts to help families pay for their college tuition, tax cuts for child care. These families are struggling and hurting, and they need more tax relief, not less tax relief. But to help get us back on the path to a balanced budget, we also want to get rid of some of the bureaucratic spending in Washington. One of the amazing things that's happened is they've actually layered on more supervisory people, people at the supervisory level, in this government. We also want to close some corporate loopholes. Now, I want to be honest with people. We can't eliminate this deficit. People have heard that over and over and over in four years. We cannot do it. We're in too deep a hole. But we can cut the deficit in half. And if we move, we can move this country back on a path to fiscal responsibility. IFILL: You have 90 seconds, Mr. Vice President. CHENEY: Gwen, the Kerry record on taxes is one basically of voting for a large number of tax increases -- 98 times in the United States Senate. There's a fundamental philosophical difference here between the president and myself, who believe that we ought to let the American people keep more of what they earn and we ought to empower them to have more control over their own lives -- I think the Kerry-Edwards approach basically is to raise taxes and to give government more control over the lives of individual citizens. We think that's the wrong way to go. There's a fundamental difference of opinion here. They talk about the top bracket and going after only those people in the top bracket. Well, the fact of the matter is a great many of our small businesses pay taxes under the personal income taxes rather than the corporate rate. And about 900,000 small businesses will be hit if you do, in fact, do what they want to do with the top bracket. That's not smart because seven out of 10 new jobs in America are created by small businesses. You do not want to tax them. It's a bad idea to increase the burden on those folks. The senator himself said, during the course of the primaries, that the Kerry plan would drive us deeper into deficit. Those were the senator's word about his running-mate. The fact of the matter is, the president and I will go forward to make the tax cuts permanent. That's good policy. That's what we ought to do. But with fiscal restraint, we'll also drive the deficit down 50 percent in the course of the next five years. IFILL: Thirty seconds, Senator Edwards. EDWARDS: We are committed to cutting back anything in our programs that need to be cut back to get us back on a path to fiscal responsibility. John Kerry, Mr. Vice President, has voted or co-sponsored over 600 times tax cuts for the American people -- over 600 times. And there is a philosophical difference between us and them. We are for more tax cuts for the middle class than they're for, have been for the last four years. But we are not for more tax cuts for multimillionaires. They are. And it is a fundamental difference in what we think needs to be done in this country. IFILL: You have 30 seconds, Mr. Vice President. CHENEY: Yesterday, the president signed an extension of middle- class tax cuts, the 10 percent bracket, the marriage penalty relief and the increase in the child tax credit. Senators Kerry and Edwards weren't even there to vote for it when it came to final passage. IFILL: The next question goes to you, Mr. Vice President. I want to read something you said four years ago at this very setting: "Freedom means freedom for everybody." You said it again recently when you were asked about legalizing same-sex unions. And you used your family's experience as a context for your remarks. Can you describe then your administration's support for a constitutional ban on same-sex unions? CHENEY: Gwen, you're right, four years ago in this debate, the subject came up. And I said then and I believe today that freedom does mean freedom for everybody. People ought to be free to choose any arrangement they want. It's really no one else's business. That's a separate question from the issue of whether or not government should sanction or approve or give some sort of authorization, if you will, to these relationships. Traditionally, that's been an issue for the states. States have regulated marriage, if you will. That would be my preference. In effect, what's happened is that in recent months, especially in Massachusetts, but also in California, but in Massachusetts we had the Massachusetts Supreme Court direct the state of -- the legislature of Massachusetts to modify their constitution to allow gay marriage. And the fact is that the president felt that it was important to make it clear that that's the wrong way to go, as far as he's concerned. Now, he sets the policy for this administration, and I support the president. IFILL: Senator Edwards, 90 seconds. EDWARDS: Yes. Let me say first, on an issue that the vice president said in his last answer before we got to this question, talking about tax policy, the country needs to know that under what they have put in place and want to put in place, a millionaire sitting by their swimming pool, collecting their statements to see how much money they're making, make their money from dividends, pays a lower tax rate than the men and women who are receiving paychecks for serving on the ground in Iraq. Now, they may think that's right. John Kerry and I do not. We don't just value wealth, which they do. We value work in this country. And it is a fundamental value difference between them and us. Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy. And I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and so does John Kerry. I also believe that there should be partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples in long-term, committed relationships. But we should not use the Constitution to divide this country. No state for the last 200 years has ever had to recognize another state's marriage. This is using the Constitution as a political tool, and it's wrong. IFILL: New question, but same subject. As the vice president mentioned, John Kerry comes from the state of Massachusetts, which has taken as big a step as any state in the union to legalize gay marriage. Yet both you and Senator Kerry say you oppose it. Are you trying to have it both ways? EDWARDS: No. I think we've both said the same thing all along. We both believe that -- and this goes onto the end of what I just talked about -- we both believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But we also believe that gay and lesbians and gay and lesbian couples, those who have been in long-term relationships, deserve to be treated respectfully, they deserve to have benefits. For example, a gay couple now has a very difficult time, one, visiting the other when they're in the hospital, or, for example, if, heaven forbid, one of them were to pass away, they have trouble even arranging the funeral. I mean, those are not the kind of things that John Kerry and I believe in. I suspect the vice president himself does not believe in that. But we don't -- we do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. And I want to go back, if I can, to the question you just asked, which is this constitutional amendment. I want to make sure people understand that the president is proposing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage that is completely unnecessary. Under the law of this country for the last 200 years, no state has been required to recognize another state's marriage. Let me just be simple about this. My state of North Carolina would not be required to recognize a marriage from Massachusetts, which you just asked about. There is absolutely no purpose in the law and in reality for this amendment. It's nothing but a political tool. And it's being used in an effort to divide this country on an issue that we should not be dividing America on. We ought to be talking about issues like health care and jobs and what's happening in Iraq, not using an issue to divide this country in a way that's solely for political purposes. It's wrong. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds. CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much. IFILL: That's it? CHENEY: That's it. IFILL: OK, then we'll move on to the next question. This one is for you, Mr. Vice President. President Bush has derided in John Kerry for putting a trial lawyer on the ticket. You yourself have said that lawsuits are partly to blame for higher medical costs. Are you willing to say that John Edwards, sitting here, has been part of the problem? (LAUGHTER) CHENEY: Well, Gwen... IFILL: Mr. Vice President? (LAUGHTER) CHENEY: First of all, I'm not familiar with his cases. My concern is specifically with what's happened to our medical care system because of rising malpractice insurance rates, because we failed to adequately reform our medical liability structure. I was in New Mexico the other day and met with a group of OB/GYN docs. And they were deeply concerned because they were fearful that there'd be another increase in malpractice insurance rates as a result of what they believe are frivolous lawsuits and that that would put them out of business. And one doctor indicated that her rates have gone up so much that she's now to the point where she is screening patients. She won't take high-risk patients anymore because of the danger that that will generate a lawsuit, and a lawsuit will put her out of business. This has had a devastating impact in a lot of communities. My home state of Wyoming, we've lost the top insurer of malpractice insurance in the state. The rates for a general practitioner have gone from $40,000 a year to $100,000 a year for an insurance policy. We think this has a devastating impact on the quality of health care. As I say, high risk patients don't get covered anymore. We've lost one out of eleven OB/GYN practitioners in the country. We think it can be fixed, needs to be fixed. Now, specifically, what we need to do is cap non-economic damages, and we also think you need to limit the awards that the trial attorneys take out of all of this. Over 50 percent of the settlements go to the attorneys and for administrating overhead. We passed medical liability reform through the House of Representatives. It's been blocked in the Senate. Senator Kerry's voted 10 times against medical liability reform, and I don't believe Senator Edwards supports it, either, not the kind that would be meaningful. IFILL: Senator Edwards? EDWARDS: Yes. Well let me say, first of all, I'm proud of the work I did on behalf of kids and families against big insurance companies, big drug companies and big HMOs. We do have too many lawsuits. And the reality is there's something that we can do about it. John Kerry and I have a plan to do something about it. We want to put more responsibility on the lawyers to require, before a case, malpractice, which the vice president just spoke about, have the case reviewed by independent experts to determine if the case is serious and meritorious before it can be filed; hold the lawyers responsible for that, certify that and hold the lawyer financially responsible if they don't do it; have a three-strikes-and-you're-out rule so that a lawyer who files three of these cases without meeting this requirement loses their right to file these cases. That way we keep the cases out of the system that don't belong in the system. They talk about frivolous cases. We believe cases that don't belong in the system should never be in the system. But we don't believe that we should take away the right of people like Valerie Lakey, who was the young girl who I represented, five years old, severely injured for life, on a defective swimming pool drain cover. It turns out the company knew of 12 other children who had either been killed or severely injured by the same problem. They hid it. They didn't tell anybody. They could have fixed it with a 2-cent screw. That's wrong. John Kerry and I are always going to stand with the Valerie Lakeys of the world, and not with the insurance companies. IFILL: Senator Edwards, new question to you, same topic. Do you feel personally attacked when Vice President Cheney talks about liability reform and tort reform and the president talks about having a trial lawyer on the ticket? EDWARDS: Am I personally attacked? I think the truth is that what they're doing is talking about an issue that really doesn't have a great deal to do with what's happening with medical policy in this country, which I think is a very serious issue. And I would be the first to say that what the vice president described a few minutes ago, problems with malpractice premiums, that's true, it's real. It's very real. What doctors talk about is very serious. And they're getting squeezed from both sides. I mean, because, they have trouble getting reimbursed, first of all, for the care that they provide, you know, from the government or from health-care companies. And, on the flip side, their malpractice costs are going up. That's very real, which is why we have proposed a plan to keep cases out of the system that don't belong there. But it's very important to put this in context. Because, in context, everything they're proposing, according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, amounts to about half of 1 percent of health-care costs in this country -- half of 1 percent. We have double-digit inflation in health care costs. We've seen the largest rise in medical costs in the last four years in the country's history: $3,500 nationally. And nobody who's watching this debate needs me to explain this to them. They know it. Medicare premiums are up 17 percent on their watch. Again, largest increase in Medicare premiums in the history of Medicare. We think we have a plan to keep cases that don't belong in the system out, but we also do what they haven't done. Five million Americans have lost their health care coverage. Medical costs are skyrocketing. We have a serious health care plan to bring down costs for everybody, to cover millions more Americans and to actually stand up to drug companies and insurance companies which this administration has been unwilling to do. IFILL: Mr. Vice President? CHENEY: Gwen, we think lawsuit abuse is a serious problem in this country. We think we badly need tort reform. I was in Minnesota the other day, where I visited an aircraft manufacturing plant. It's a great success story. This is a company that started 20 years ago with nothing. Today they're the second- leading producer of piston-driven aircraft in the country. He told me that if it weren't for the increased cost of his liability insurance, in this case product liability, he could hire 200 more people in his factory. We've built into the system enormous costs as a result of our practice with respect to litigation. We have to find ways to get a handle on it. He mentioned Medicare up 17 percent, somehow that that was something we caused. No. The 17 percent increase in Medicare premiums was the direct result of a statute adopted in 1997. John Kerry voted for it. It establishes the formula for Part B of Medicare that says, in effect, it has to cover 25 percent of the cost of the program. And the reason the money had to go into the trust fund was to make certain that we could cover those eligible for benefits. While you were in private practice in law and as a senator, you had the advantage of a special tax loophole, Subchapter S corporation, which you set up so you could avoid paying $600,000 in Medicare taxes that would have gone into the fund. And it's those kinds of loopholes that necessitate a premium increase under the law that was enacted in 1997, supported by John Kerry. IFILL: You have 30 seconds to respond. EDWARDS: Well, first of all, I have paid all the taxes that I owe. When the vice president was CEO of Halliburton, they took advantage of every offshore loophole available. They had multiple offshore companies that were avoiding taxes. Those are the kind of things that ought to be closed. They ought to be closed. They ought to be closed for anybody. They ought to be closed whether they're personal, and they ought to be closed whether they apply to a corporation. But the reality is health care costs are going up every day for the American people, and I hope we're going to get a chance to talk more about health care. IFILL: Thirty seconds, Mr. Vice President. CHENEY: We've done a lot to reduce the cost of health care. The Medicare drug benefit that we'll be providing to seniors beginning in '06 will provide upwards to $1,300 a year to help them buy prescription drugs. The drug savings -- drug discount card that's now available saves an estimated 15 percent to 30 percent off the cost of prescription drugs for senior citizens. So we're moving in as many areas as we can to make certain we hold down and reduce the health care costs. IFILL: I will talk to you about health care, Mr. Vice President. You have two minutes. But in particular, I want to talk to you about AIDS, and not about AIDS in China or Africa, but AIDS right here in this country, where black women between the ages of 25 and 44 are 13 times more likely to die of the disease than their counterparts. What should the government's role be in helping to end the growth of this epidemic? CHENEY: Well, this is a great tragedy, Gwen, when you think about the enormous cost here in the United States and around the world of the AIDS epidemic -- pandemic, really. Millions of lives lost, millions more infected and facing a very bleak future. In some parts of the world, we've got the entire, sort of, productive generation has been eliminated as a result of AIDS, all except for old folks and kids -- nobody to do the basic work that runs an economy. The president has been deeply concerned about it. He has moved and proposed and gotten through the Congress authorization for $15 billion to help in the international effort, to be targeted in those places where we need to do everything we can, through a combination of education as well as providing the kinds of medicines that will help people control the infection. Here in the United States, we've made significant progress. I have not heard those numbers with respect to African- American women. I was not aware that it was -- that they're in epidemic there, because we have made progress in terms of the overall rate of AIDS infection, and I think primarily through a combination of education and public awareness as well as the development, as a result of research, of drugs that allow people to live longer lives even though they are infected -- obviously we need to do more of that. IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds. EDWARDS: Well, first, with respect to what's happening in Africa and Russia and in other places around the world, the vice president spoke about the $15 billion for AIDS. John Kerry and I believe that needs to be doubled. And I might add, on the first year of their commitment, they came up significantly short of what they had promised. And we probably won't get a chance to talk about Africa. Let me just say a couple of things. The AIDS epidemic in Africa, which is killing millions and millions of people and is a frightening thing not just for the people of Africa but also for the rest of the world, that, combined with the genocide that we're now seeing in Sudan, are two huge moral issues for the United States of America, which John Kerry spoke about eloquently last Thursday night. Here at home we need to do much more. And the vice president spoke about doing research, making sure we have the drugs available, making sure that we do everything possible to have prevention. But it's a bigger question than that. You know, we have 5 million Americans who've lost their health care coverage in the last four years; 45 million Americans without health care coverage. We have children who don't have health care coverage. If kids and adults don't have access to preventative care, if they're not getting the health care that they need day after day after day, the possibility of not only developing AIDS and having a problem -- having a problem -- a life-threatening problem, but the problem of developing other life-threatening diseases is there every day of their lives. IFILL: OK, we'll move on. This goes to you, Senator Edwards, and you have two minutes. Ten men and women have been nominees of their parties since 1976 to be vice president. Out of those ten, you have the least governmental experience of any of them. What qualifies you to be a heartbeat away? EDWARDS: The American people want in their president and in their vice president basically three things: They want to know that their president and their vice president will keep them safe. They want to know that they have good judgment. And they want to know that you'll tell them the truth. John Kerry and I will tell the American people the truth. During the time that I have served on the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, traveling to some of the places we've talked about tonight -- Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Middle East, Turkey -- meeting with the leaders of NATO, I have a very clear idea of what has to be done to keep this country safe. The threats we face: terrorism, killing terrorists and stopping them before they can do damage to us, making sure that we stop the spread of nuclear weapons. I agree with John Kerry from Thursday night, that the danger of nuclear weapons getting in the hands of terrorists is one of the greatest threats that America faces. But the one thing that we know from this administration is -- and I -- first of all, I don't claim to have the long political resume that Vice President Cheney has. That's just the truth, and the American people know that and deserve to know it. But what we know from this administration is that a long resume does not equal good judgment. Here are the judgments I would make: My first priority would be to keep this country safe. I would find terrorists where they are and stop them and kill them before they do harm to us. We would stop the spread of nuclear weapons. And we would also strengthen this military, which means providing the equipment and training that they need. We want to raise the active-duty forces by 40,000, double the special forces so we can find terrorists where they are, and provide the kind of support for families -- health care, housing -- that they deserve while their loved ones are serving and protecting us. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds. CHENEY: You want me to answer a question about his qualifications? IFILL: That was the question. CHENEY: I see. Well, I think the important thing in picking a vice president probably varies from president to president. Different presidents approach it in different ways. When George Bush asked me to sign on, it obviously wasn't because he was worried about carrying Wyoming. We got 70 percent of the vote in Wyoming, although those three electoral votes turned out to be pretty important last time around. What he said he wanted me to do was to sign on because of my experience to be a member of the team, to help him govern, and that's exactly the way he's used me. And I think from the perspective of the nation, it's worked in our relationship, in this administration. I think it's worked in part because I made it clear that I don't have any further political aspirations myself. And I think that's been an advantage. I think it allows the president to know that my only agenda is his agenda. I'm not worried about what some precinct committeemen in Iowa were thinking of me with respect to the next round of caucuses of 2008. It's a very significant responsibility when you consider that at a moment's notice you may have to take over as president of the United States and make all of those decisions. It's happened several times in our history. And I think that probably is the most important consideration in picking a vice president, somebody who could take over. IFILL: You have 30 seconds, if you'd like to respond to that. EDWARDS: I think the most important thing I've learned from this process is what I now know about John Kerry. I knew him before. I know him better now. He's the one candidate who's led troops in battle. He was a prosecutor, putting people behind bars to protect neighborhoods from crime. He fought for 100,000 cops on the street, and went with John McCain to Vietnam to find out what happened to our POWs. And the American people saw for themselves on Thursday night the strength, resolve, and backbone that I, myself, have seen in John Kerry. He is ready to be commander in chief. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 30 seconds to respond. CHENEY: Well, I clearly believe that George W. Bush would be a better commander in chief. He's already done it for four years. And he's demonstrated, without question, the conviction, the vision, the determination to win this war against terror. He understands it's a global conflict that reaches from the United States all the way around the globe to Jakarta. And those very special qualities are vital in a commander in chief. And I think the president has them, and I'm not at all convinced his opponent does. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, picking up on that, you both just sang the praises of the tops of your ticket. Without mentioning them by name at all, explain to us why you are different from your opponent, starting with you, Mr. Vice President. CHENEY: Why I am different from John Edwards. Well, in some respects, I think, probably there are more similarities than there are differences in our personal story. I don't talk about myself very much, but I've heard Senator Edwards, and as I listen to him, I find some similarities. I come from relatively modest circumstances. My grandfather never even went to high school. I'm the first in my family to graduate from college. I carried a ticket in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers for six years. I've been laid off, been hospitalized without health insurance. So I have some idea of the problems that people encounter. So I think the personal stories are, in some respects, surprisingly similar. With respect to how we've spent our careers, I obviously made a choice for public service. And I've been at it for a good long time now, except for those periods when we lost elections. And that goes with the turf, as well, too. I'm absolutely convinced that the threat we face now, the idea of a terrorist in the middle of one of our cities with a nuclear weapon, is very real and that we have to use extraordinary measures to deal with it. I feel very strongly that the significance of 9/11 cannot be underestimated. It forces us to think in new ways about strategy, about national security, about how we structure our forces and about how we use U.S. military power. Some people say we should wait until we are attacked before we use force. I would argue we've already been attacked. We lost more people on 9/11 than we lost at Pearl Harbor. And I'm a very strong advocate of a very aggressive policy of going after the terrorists and those who support terror. IFILL: Senator Edwards, you have 90 seconds. EDWARDS: Mr. Vice President, we were attacked. But we weren't attacked by Saddam Hussein. And one thing that John Kerry and I would agree with you about is that it is... IFILL: You just used John Kerry's name. EDWARDS: Oh, I'm sorry. I broke the rule. One thing that we agree about is the need to be offensive in going after terrorists. The reality is that the best defense is a good offense, which means leading -- America returning to its proud tradition of the last 75 years, of once again leading strong coalitions so we can get at these terrorist cells where they are, before they can do damage to us and to the American people. John Kerry made clear on Thursday night that -- I'm sorry, I broke the rules. We made clear -- we made clear on Thursday night that we will do that, and we will do it aggressively. But there are things that need to be done to keep this country safe that have not yet been done. For example, three years after 9/11, we find out that the administration still does not have a unified terrorist watch list. It's amazing. Three years. What are we waiting for? You know, we still don't have one list that everyone can work off of to see if terrorists are entering this country. We're screening our passengers going onto airplanes, but we don't screen the cargo. There are so many things that could be done to keep this country safe. You have to be strong, and you have to be aggressive. But we also have to be smart. And there are things that have not been done that need to be done to keep the American people safe. IFILL: Would you like to respond? Thirty seconds. CHENEY: No. IFILL: OK, we'll move on. This goes to Senator Edwards. Flip-flopping has become a recurring theme in this campaign, you may have noticed. Senator Kerry changed his mind about whether to vote to authorize the president to go to war. President Bush changed his mind about whether a homeland security department was a good idea or a 9/11 Commission was a good idea. What's wrong with a little flip-flop every now and then? EDWARDS: Well, first of all, let me say that John Kerry has -- I can use his name now? IFILL: Yes. EDWARDS: OK. John Kerry has been, as have I, been completely consistent about Iraq. We've made very clear from the beginning -- and not an afterthought; we said it at the time -- that we had to confront Saddam Hussein and that we had to have a coalition and a plan to be successful. And the vice president didn't say much about it in your earlier question, but Paul Bremer has now made clear that they didn't have enough troops and they didn't have a plan. And the American people are seeing the results of that every single day, in spite of the proud and courageous service of our men and women in uniform. Now, flip-flops: They should know something about flip-flops. They've seen a lot of it during their administration. They were first against the 9/11 Commission; then they were for it. They were for a department of homeland security -- I mean, they were against the Department of Homeland Security; then they were for it. They said they were going to put $2 trillion of the surplus when they came into office aside to protect Social Security; then they changed their minds. They said that they supported the troops; and then while our troops were on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, they went to the Congress and lobbied to have their combat pay cut. They said that they were going to do something about health care in this country. And they've done something: They've made it worse. They said that they were going to fund their No Child Left Behind; $27 billion short today. Over and over, this administration has said one thing and done another. This president said -- I listened to him the other night at his 2000 debate saying: I'm for a national patients bill of rights. I know something about this. John McCain and Senator Kennedy and I wrote it, got it passed in the Senate. We don't have a patients bill of rights because of one man today, the president of the United States. They've gone back and forth. IFILL: Mr. Vice President? CHENEY: Well, Gwen, I can think of a lot of words to describe Senator Kerry's position on Iraq; "consistent" is not one of them. I think if you look at the record from voting for sending the troops then voting against the resources they needed when they got there, then saying I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it, saying in response to a question knowing everything I know now, yes, I would have cast exactly the same vote and then shortly after that saying wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, consistency doesn't come to mind as I consider that record. The question of troops is an interesting and important one. We have looked to our commanders on the ground in Iraq for guidance on what they think they need. If they need more troops, they'll ask us. But the key here is not to try to solve the problems in Iraq by putting in more American troops. The key is to get the Iraqis to take on the responsibility for their own security. That's exactly what we're doing. If you put American troops in there in larger number and don't get the Iraqis into the fight, you'll postpone the day when you can in fact bring our boys home. It's vital that we deal with any need for additional troops by putting Iraqis into the effort. Forty-nine percent increase in funding for elementary and secondary education under No Child Left Behind; that's a lot of money even by Massachusetts' standards. IFILL: You have 30 seconds if you choose. EDWARDS: Yes, but they didn't fund the mandates that they put on the schools all over this country. That's the reason 800 teachers -- one of the reasons -- 800 teachers have been laid off, right here in Cleveland. One-third of our public schools are failing under this administration. Half of African-Americans are dropping out of high school. Half of Hispanic-American are dropping out of high school. John and I have -- and I don't have the time now -- but we have a clear plan to improve our public schools that starts with getting our best teachers into the schools where we need them the most by creating incentives for them to go there. IFILL: Mr. Vice President? CHENEY: Gwen, No Child Left Behind, they were for it; now they're against it. They voted for it; now they're opposed to it. We are making significant progress there. We are closing the achievement gap. The results coming in from a number of studies show, without question, that on math and reading, that in fact our minority students, our Hispanic and African-American students are doing better, and that gap between them and the majority population is, in fact, closing. So we are doing exactly the right thing. They're the ones who have been for the Patriot Act and against it, for No Child Left Behind and then against it. IFILL: Mr. Vice President, our final -- I'm sorry, you have 30 seconds, Senator Edwards. EDWARDS: Are you sure -- yes, he started. Yes, 30 seconds, please, yes. We are for accountability, and we are for high standards. John and I voted for No Child Left Behind because we thought that accountability and standards were the right thing to do. But they make -- did you figure out you were wrong? IFILL: I did figure out I was wrong. EDWARDS: Well, in fairness, if you feel like you need to go to him, we'll -- I'll stop. IFILL: Well, I do, because we're actually on the final question. I apologize for giving you an extra 15 seconds there. I go now to Vice President Cheney. Whichever one of you is elected in November -- you mentioned those three electoral votes in Wyoming and how critical they've turned out to be. But what they're a sign of also is that you're going to inherit a very deeply divided electorate, economically, politically, you name it. How will you set out, Mr. Vice President, in a way that you weren't able to in these past four years, to bridge that divide? CHENEY: Well, I must say it's one of the disappointments of the last four years, is that we've not been able to do what the president did in Texas, for example, when he was able to reach across the aisle and bring Democrats along on major issues of the day. We had some success early on, I think, in No Child Left Behind, when we, in fact, had broad, bipartisan support. We had a lot of support for the Patriot Act, when we passed that on a bipartisan basis. Now we're seeing objection to that by the other side. All I know is to continue to try to work it. It's a disappointment, in a sense, that I remember from my earlier service when things worked much differently, when, in fact, some of my best friends in the Congress were people I worked with, like Tom Foley, who was a majority leader and later speaker of the House. One of my strongest allies in Congress when I secretary of defense was Jack Murtha, a Democrat who is chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. We used to be able to do more together on a bipartisan basis than seems possible these days. I'm not sure exactly why. I think, in part, it may be the change in the majority-minority status in the Senate has been difficult for both sides to adjust to. And the Senate, of course, has been very evenly divided, 50-50, then 51-49, then 49-51 the other way. We'll keep working at it. I think it's important for us to try. I believe that it is essential for us to do everything we can to garner as much support from the other side of the aisle as possible. We've had support -- we had our keynote address at our convention was delivered by Zell Miller. So there are some Democrats who agree with our approach. And hopefully in a second term, we'll see an improvement along those lines. IFILL: Senator, there's 90 seconds. EDWARDS: Thank you. The president said that he would unite this country, that he was a uniter, not a divider. Have you ever seen America more divided? Have you ever seen Washington more divided? The reality is it is not an accident. It's the direct result of the choices they've made and their efforts that have created division in America. We can do better than that in this country. Now I want to go back to the whole issue of health care, because we touched it, but I think the American people deserve to know what we would do different. I mean, 5 million people losing their health care -- everyone who's watching this knows health insurance premiums are through the roof. We need to talk about what we will do that they haven't done. First, we're going to make the same health care that's available to members of Congress available to all Americans. We're going to cover all kids. Not only that, we're going to bring down costs by pooling the catastrophic costs so we bring down premiums. And we're going to give tax breaks directly to families, save them up to $1,000 a year, and to businesses -- the vice president talked about that a few minutes ago -- so that they can provide health care to their employees. And we're also going to finally do something about the cost of prescription drugs. They've blocked allowing prescription drugs into this country from Canada. We're going to allow it. They would not allow the government to use its negotiating power to get discounts for seniors. We're going to allow it. We're also going to stand up to the drug companies and do something about these drug company ads on television which are out of control. IFILL: You have 30 seconds to respond to that, Mr. Vice President. CHENEY: Well, Gwen -- I'm sorry, it's hard to know where to start. The fact of the matter is, the most important and significant change in health care in the last several years was the Medicare reform bill this year. It's the most sweeping change in 40 years. Medicare used to pay for heart bypass surgery but didn't pay for the prescription drugs that might allow you to avoid it. The fact is that when that came up, Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards voted against it. It'll provide prescription drug benefits to 40 million senior citizens. It's a very, very significant piece of legislation. IFILL: Thirty seconds. EDWARDS: They had a choice on allowing prescription drugs into this country from Canada, of being with the American people or with the drug companies. They were with the drug companies. They had a choice on negotiating discounts in the Medicare prescription drug bill of being with the American people or with the drug companies. They were with the drug companies. They had a choice on the patients' bill of rights, allowing people to make their own health care decisions and not having insurance companies make them, be with the American people, be with the big insurance companies. They're with the insurance companies. John Kerry and I will always fight for the American people. IFILL: As previously agreed, we'll go to closing statements now, two minutes each. Coin toss, Senator Edwards, you begin. EDWARDS: Thank you. Thank you, Gwen. Thank you, Mr. Vice President, for being here. You know, when I was young and growing up, I remember coming down the steps into the kitchen, early in the morning, and I would see the glow of the television. And I'd see my father sitting at a table. He wasn't paying bills, and he wasn't doing paperwork from work. What he was doing was learning math on television. Now, he didn't have a college education, but he was doing what he could do to get a better job in the mill where he worked. I was proud of him. I'm still proud of him. And I was also hopeful, because I knew that I lived in a country where I could get a college education. Here's the truth: I have grown up in the bright light of America. But that light is flickering today. Now, I know that the vice president and the president don't see it, but you do. You see it when your incomes are going down and the cost of everything -- college tuition, health care -- is going through the roof. You see it when you sit at your table each night and there's an empty chair because a loved one is serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. What they're going to give you is four more years of the same. John Kerry and I believe that we can do better. We believe in a strong middle-class in this country. That's why we have a plan to create jobs, getting rid of tax cuts for companies outsourcing your jobs; give tax cuts to companies that'll keep jobs here in America. That's why we have a health care plan. That's why we have a plan to keep you safe and to fix this mess in Iraq. The truth is that every four years you get to decide. You have the ability to decide where America's going to go. John Kerry and I are asking you to give us the power to fight for you, to fight to keep that dream in America, that I saw as a young man, alive for every parent sitting at that kitchen table. IFILL: Vice President Cheney? CHENEY: Gwen, I want to thank you. It's been a privilege to serve as your vice president these last four years and to work alongside President Bush to put our economy on an upward path. We've cut taxes, added 1.7 million new jobs in the last year, and we'll continue to provide opportunities for business and for workers. We won't be happy until every American who wants to work can find a job. We believe that all Americans ought to have access to available -- to medical care and that they ought to have access to the finest schools in the world. We'll do everything we can to preserve Social Security and to make certain that it's there for future generations. I've worked for four presidents and watched two others up close, and I know that there's no such thing as a routine day in the Oval Office. We saw on 9/11 that the next president -- next decision a president has to make can affect the lives of all of us. Now we find ourselves in the midst of a conflict unlike any we've ever known, faced with the possibility that terrorists could smuggle a deadly biological agent or a nuclear weapon into the middle of one of our own cities. That threat -- and the presidential leadership needed to deal with it -- is placing a special responsibility on all of you who will decide on November 2nd who will be our commander in chief. The only viable option for winning the war on terrorism is the one the president has chosen, to use the power of the United States to aggressively go after the terrorists wherever we find them and also to hold to account states that sponsor terror. Now that we've captured or killed thousands of Al Qaida and taken down the regimes of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, it's important that we stand up democratically elected governments as the only guarantee that they'll never again revert to terrorism or the production of deadly weapons. This is the task of our generation. And I know firsthand the strength the president brings to it. The overall outcome will depend upon the ability of the American people and the strong leadership of the president to meet all the challenges that we'll face in the days and years ahead. I'm confident we can do it. IFILL: And with that, we come to the end of tonight's debate. On behalf of the commission and the candidates, I'd like to extend a special thank you to the students and administration here at Case Western Reserve University. A reminder: The second presidential debate takes place this coming Friday at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. Charles Gibson of ABC News will serve as moderator of that encounter, where the candidates will field questions from an audience. Then, on October 13th, from Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, Bob Schieffer of CBS News will moderate a debate on domestic issues. For now, thank you, Vice President Cheney, Senator Edwards. From Cleveland, Ohio, I'm Gwen Ifill. Thank you, and goodnight. Source: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/vice-presidential-debate-case-western-reserve-university-cleveland

To the Congress: On the morning of December eleventh, the Government of Germany, pursuing its course of world conquest, declared war against the United States. The long known and the long expected has thus taken place. The forces endeavoring to enslave the entire world now are moving toward this hemisphere. Never before has there been a greater challenge to life, liberty, and civilization. Delay invites greater danger. Rapid and united effort by all of the peoples of the world who are determined to remain free will insure a world victory of the forces of justice and of righteousness over the forces of savagery and of barbarism. Italy also has declared war against the United States. I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and Germany, and between the United States and Italy. Source: https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/december-11-1941-message-congress-requesting-war-declarations

August 11, 1932 Mr. Chairman and my fellow citizens: In accepting the great honor that you have brought to me, I desire to speak so simply and so plainly that every man and woman in the United States who may hear or read my words cannot misunderstand. The last 3 years have been a time of unparalleled economic calamity. They have been years of greater suffering and hardship than any which have come to the American people since the aftermath of the Civil War. As we look back over these troubled years we realize that we have passed through two different stages of dislocation and distress. Before the storm broke we were steadily gaining in prosperity. Our wounds from the war were rapidly healing. Advances in science and invention had opened vast vistas of new progress. Being prosperous, we became optimistic--all of us. From optimism some of us went to overexpansion in anticipation of the future, and from overexpansion to reckless speculation. In the soil poisoned by speculation grew those ugly weeds of waste, exploitation, and abuse of financial power. In this overproduction and speculative mania we marched with the rest of the whole world. Then 3 years ago came retribution by the inevitable worldwide slump in the consumption of goods, in prices, and employment. At that juncture it was the normal penalty for a reckless boom such as we have witnessed a score of times in our national history. Through such depressions we have always passed safely after a relatively short period of losses, of hardship, and of adjustment. We have adopted policies in the Government which were fitting to the situation. Gradually the country began to right itself. Eighteen months ago there was a solid basis for hope that recovery was in sight. Then, there came to us a new calamity, a blow from abroad of such dangerous character as to strike at the very safety of the Republic. The countries of Europe proved unable to withstand the stress of the depression. The memories of the world had ignored the fact that the insidious diseases left by the Great War had not been cured. The skill and intelligence of millions in Europe had been blotted out by battle, by disease, and by starvation. Stupendous burdens of national debt had been built up. Poisoned springs of political instability lay in the treaties which closed the war. Fear and hates held armament to double those before the great conflict. Governments were fallaciously seeking to build back by enlarged borrowing, by subsidizing industry and employment from taxes that slowly sapped the savings upon which industry and rejuvenated commerce must be built. Under these strains the financial systems of foreign countries crashed one by one. New blows with decreasing world consumption of goods and from failing financial systems rained upon our people. We are a part of the world the disturbance of whose remotest populations affects our financial system, our employment, our markets, and the prices of our farm products. Thus beginning 18 months ago, the worldwide storm grew rapidly to hurricane force and the greatest economic emergency in all the history of the world. Unexpected, unforeseen, violent shocks with every month brought new dangers and new emergencies to our country. Fear and apprehension gripped the heart of our people in every village and city. If we look back over the disasters of these 3 years, we find that three-quarter of the population of the globe has suffered from the flames of revolution. Many nations have been subject to constant change and vacillation of government. Others have resorted to dictatorship or tyranny in desperate attempts to preserve some kind of social order. I may pause for one short illustration of the character of one single destructive force arising from these causes which we have been compelled to meet. That was its effect upon our financial structure. Foreign countries, in the face of their own failures, the failures of their neighbors, not believing that we had either the courage or the ability or the strength to meet this crisis, withdrew from the United States over $2,400 million, including a billion of gold. Our own alarmed citizens withdrew over $1,600 million of currency from our banks into hoarding. These actions, combined with the fears that they generated, caused a shrinkage of credit available for the conduct of industry and commerce by several times even these vast sums. Its visible expression was the failures of banks and business, the demoralization of security and real property values, of the commodity prices, and of employment. And that was but one of the invading forces of destruction that we have been compelled to meet in the last 18 months. Two courses were open to us. We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead, we met the situation with proposals to private business and to the Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put that program in action. Our measures have repelled these attacks of fear and panic. We have maintained the financial integrity of the Government. We have cooperated to restore and stabilize the situation abroad. As a nation we have paid every dollar demanded of us. We have used the credit of the Government to aid and protect our institutions, both public and private. We have provided methods and assurances that none suffer from hunger or cold amongst our people. We have instituted measures to assist our farmers and our homeowners. We have created vast agencies for employment. Above all, we have maintained the sanctity of the principles upon which this Republic has grown great. In a large sense the test of the success of our program is simple. Our people, while suffering great hardships, have been and will be cared for. In the long view our institutions have been sustained intact and are now functioning with increasing confidence for the future. As a nation we are undefeated and unafraid. And again above all, government by the people has not been defiled. With the humility of one who by necessity has stood in the midst of this storm I can say with pride that the distinction for these accomplishments belongs not to the Government or to any individual. It is due to the intrepid soul of our people. It is to their character, their fortitude, their initiative, and their courage that we owe these results. We of this generation did not build this great Ship of State. But the policies that we have inaugurated have protected and aided its navigation in this terrible storm. These policies and programs have not been partisan. I gladly give tribute to those members of the Democratic Party in the Congress whose patriotic cooperation against factional and demagogic opposition has assisted in a score of great undertakings. I likewise give credit to Democratic as well as Republican leaders among our citizens for their cooperation and their help. A record of these dangers and these policies of the last 3 years will be set down in the books. Much of it is of interest only to history. Our interest now is in the future. I dwell upon these policies and these programs and problems only where they illustrate the questions of the day and our course for the future. As a government and as a people we still have much to do. We must continue the building of our measures of restoration. We must profit by the lessons of this experience. Before I enter upon a discussion of these policies I wish to say something of my conception of the relations of our Government to the people and the responsibilities of both, particularly as applied to these times. The spirit and the devising of this Government by the people was to sustain a dual purpose--on the one hand to protect our people amongst nations and in domestic emergencies by great national power, and on the other to preserve individual liberty and freedom through local self-government. The function of the Federal Government in these times is to use its reserve powers and its strength for the protection of citizens and local governments by the support to our institutions against forces beyond their control. It is not the function of the Government to relieve individuals of their responsibilities to their neighbors, or to relieve private institutions of their responsibilities to the public, or the local government to the States, or the responsibilities of State governments to the Federal Government. In giving that protection and that aid the Federal Government must insist that all of them exert their responsibilities in full. It is vital that the programs of the Government shall not compete with or replace any of them but shall add to their initiative and to their strength. It is vital that by the use of public revenues and public credit in emergencies that the Nation shall be strengthened and not weakened. And in all these emergencies and crises, and in all our future policies, we must also preserve the fundamental principles of our social and our economic system. That system was rounded upon a conception of ordered freedom. The test of that freedom is that there should be maintained an equality of opportunity to every individual so that he may achieve for himself the best to which his character, ability, and ambition entitle him. It is only by the release of initiative, this insistence upon individual responsibility, that we accrue the great sums of individual accomplishment which carry this Nation forward. This is not an individualism which permits men to run riot in selfishness or to override equality of opportunity for others. It permits no violation of ordered liberty. In the race after false gods of materialism men and groups have forgotten their country. Equality of opportunity contains no conception of exploitation by any selfish, ruthless, class-minded men or groups. They have no place in the American system. As against these stand the guiding ideals and the concepts of our Nation. I propose to maintain them. The solution of our many problems which arise from the shifting scene of national life is not to be found in haphazard experimentation or by revolution. It must be through organic development of our national life under these ideals. It must secure that cooperative action which brings initiative and strength outside of the Government. It does not follow, because our difficulties are stupendous, because there are some souls timorous enough to doubt the validity and effectiveness of our ideals and our system, that we must turn to a State-controlled or State-directed social or economic system in order to cure our troubles. That is not liberalism; that is tyranny. It is the regimentation of men under autocratic bureaucracy with all its extinction of liberty, of hope, and of opportunity. Of course, no man of understanding says that our system works perfectly. It does not for the human race is not yet perfect. Nevertheless, the movement of true civilization is towards freedom rather than regimentation. And that is our ideal. Ofttimes the tendency of democracy in the presence of national danger is to strike blindly, to listen to demagogues and to slogans, all of which destroy and do not save. We have refused to be stampeded into such courses. Ofttimes democracy elsewhere in the world has been unable to move fast enough to save itself in emergency. There have been disheartening delays and failures in legislation and private action which -have added to the losses of our people, yet this democracy of ours has proved its ability to act. Our emergency measures of the last 3 years form a definite strategy dominated in the background by these American principles and ideals, forming a continuous campaign waged against the forces of destruction on an ever-widening and a constantly shifting front. Thus we have held that the Federal Government should in the presence of great national danger use its powers to give leadership to the initiative, the courage, and the fortitude of the people themselves, but that it must insist upon individual, community, and State responsibility. That it should furnish leadership to assure the coordination and unity of great existing agencies, governmental and private, for economic and humanitarian action. That where it becomes necessary to meet emergencies beyond the power of these agencies by the creation of new governmental instrumentalities, that they should be of such character as not to supplant or weaken, but rather to supplement and strengthen, the initiative and enterprise of our people. That they must, directly or indirectly, serve all of the people. And above all, that they should be set up in such form that once the emergency is past they can and must be demobilized and withdrawn, leaving our governmental, economic, and social structure strong and whole. We have not feared boldly to adopt unprecedented measures to meet unprecedented violences of the storm. But, because we have kept ever before us these eternal principles of our Nation, the American Government in its ideals is the same as it was when the people gave the Presidency to my trust. We shall keep it so. We have resolutely rejected the temptation, under pressure of immediate events, to resort to those panaceas and short cuts which, even if temporarily successful, would ultimately undermine and weaken what has slowly been built and molded by experience and effort throughout these 150 years. It was in accordance with these principles that at the first stage of the depression I called upon the leaders of business and of labor and of agriculture to meet with me and induced them, by their own initiative, to organize against the panic with all its devastating destruction; to uphold wages until the cost of living was adjusted; to spread existing employment through shortened hours; and to advance construction work against future need. It was in pursuance of that same policy that I have each winter thereafter assumed the leadership in mobilizing all of the voluntary and official organizations throughout the country to prevent suffering from hunger and cold, and to protect millions of families stricken by drought. And when it became advisable to strengthen the States who could no longer carry the full burden of relief to distress, it was in accordance with these principles that we held that the Federal Government should do so through loans to the States and thus maintain the fundamental responsibility of the States themselves. We stopped the attempt to turn this effort to the politics of selfish sectional demands, and we kept it based upon human need. It was in accordance with these principles that, in aid to unemployment, we expend some $600 millions in Federal construction of such public works as can be justified as bringing early and definite returns. We have opposed the distortion of these needed works into pork-barrel nonproductive works which impoverish the Nation. It is in accord with these principles and these purposes that we have made provision for $1,500 millions of loans to self-supporting works so that we may increase employment in productive labor. We rejected projects of wasteful nonproductive work allocated for purposes of attracting votes instead of affording relief. Thereby, instead of wasteful drain upon the taxpayer, we secured the return of their cost to Government agencies and at the same time we increased the wealth of the Nation. It was in accordance with these principles that we have strengthened the capital of the Federal land banks--that, on the one hand, confidence in their securities should not be impaired, and that on the other, the farmers indebted to them should not be unduly deprived of their homes. It was in accordance with these purposes that the Farm Board by emergency loan to farmers' cooperatives served to stem panics in agricultural prices and saved hundreds of thousands of farmers and their creditors from bankruptcy. It was in accord with these ideas that we have created agencies to prevent bankruptcy and failure in their cooperative organizations; that we are erecting new instrumentalities to give credit facilities for their livestock growers and their orderly marketing of their farm products. It is in accordance with these principles that in the face of the looming European crises we sought to change the trend of European economic degeneration by our proposals of the German moratorium and the standstill agreements on German private debts. We stemmed the tide of collapse in Germany and the consequent ruin of its people. In furtherance of world stability we have made proposals to reduce the cost of world armaments by $1 billion a year. It was in accordance with these principles that I first secured the creation by private initiative of the National Credit Association, whose efforts prevented the failure of hundreds of banks, and the loss to countless thousands of depositors who had loaned all of their savings to them. It was in accord with these ideas that as the storm grew in intensity we created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation with a capital of 2 billions more to uphold the credit structure of the Nation, and by thus raising the shield of Government credit we prevented the wholesale failure of banks, of insurance companies, of building and loan associations, of farm mortgage associations, and of railroads in all of which the public interest is paramount. This disaster has been averted through the saving of more than 5,000 institutions and the knowledge that adequate assistance was available to tide others over the stress. This has been done not to save a few stockholders, but to save 25 millions of American families, every one of whose very savings and employment might have been wiped out and whose whole future would have been blighted had these institutions gone down. It was in accordance with these principles that we expanded the functions and the powers of the Federal Reserve banks that they might counteract the stupendous shrinkage of credit due to fear and to hoarding and the foreign withdrawal of our resources. It was in accordance with these principles that we are now in process of establishing a new system of home loan banks so that through added strength and through cooperation between the building and loan associations, the savings banks and other institutes we may relax the pressures on forfeiture of homes and procure the release of new resources for the construction of more homes and the employment of more men. It was in accordance with these principles that we have insisted upon a reduction of governmental expenses, for no country can squander itself to prosperity on the ruins of its taxpayers. And it was in accordance with these purposes that we have sought new revenues to equalize the diminishing income of the Government in order that the power of the Federal Government to meet the emergency should be impregnable. It was in accordance with these principles that we have joined in the development of a world economic conference to bulwark the whole international fabric of finance, of monetary values, and the expansion of world commerce. It was in accordance with these principles and these policies that I am today organizing the private industrial and financial resources of the country to cooperate effectively with the vast governmental instrumentalities which we have in motion, so that through their united and coordinated efforts we may move from defense to a powerful attack upon the depression along the whole national front. These programs, unparalleled in the history of depressions of any country and in any time, to care for distress, to provide employment, to aid agriculture, to maintain the financial stability of the country, to safeguard the savings of the people, to protect their homes, are not in the past tense--they are in action. I shall propose such other measures, public and private, as may be necessary from time to time to meet the changing situations that may occur and to further speed our economic recovery. That recovery may be slow, but we shall succeed. And come what may, I shall maintain through all these measures the sanctity of the great principles under which the Republic over a period of 150 years has grown to be the greatest Nation of the Earth. I should like to digress a second for an observation on the last 3 years which should exhilarate the faith of every American--and that is the profound growth of the sense of social responsibility in our Nation which this depression has demonstrated. No Government in Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a responsibility for leadership in such times. Despite hardships, the devotion of our men and women to those in distress is demonstrated by the national averages of infant mortality, general mortality, and sickness, which are less today than in times even of prosperity. For the first time in the history of depressions, dividends and profits and the cost of living have been reduced before wages have been sacrificed. We have been more free from industrial conflict through strikes and lockouts and all forms of social disorder than even in normal times. The Nation is building the initiative of men and of women toward new fields of social cooperation and new fields of endeavor. So much for the great national emergency and the principles of government for which we stand and their application to the measures we have taken. There are national policies wider than the emergency, wider than the economic horizon. They are set forth in our platform. Having had the responsibility of this office, my views upon most of them are clearly and often set forth in public record. I may, however, summarize some of them. First: I am squarely for a protective tariff. I am against the proposal of "a competitive tariff for revenue" as advocated by our opponents. That would place our farmers and our workers in competition with peasant and sweated-labor products from abroad. Second: I am against their proposals to destroy the usefulness of the bipartisan Tariff Commission, the establishment of whose effective powers we secured during this administration just 25 years after it was first advocated by President Theodore Roosevelt. That instrumentality enables us to correct any injustice and to readjust the rates of duty to shifting economic change, without constant tinkering and orgies of logrolling by Congress. If our opponents will descend from the vague generalization to any particular schedule, if it be higher than necessary to protect our people or insufficient for their protection, it can be remedied by this bipartisan Commission without a national election. Third: My views in opposition to the cancellation of the war debt are a matter of detailed record in many public statements and in a recent message to the Congress. They mark a continuity of that policy maintained by my predecessors. I am hopeful of such drastic reduction of world armament as will save the taxpayers in debtor countries a large part of the cost of their payments to us. If for any particular annual payment we were offered some other tangible form of compensation, such as the expansion of markets for American agriculture and labor, and the restoration and maintenance of our prosperity, then I am sure our citizens would consider such a proposal. But it is a certainty that these debts must not be canceled or these burdens transferred to the backs of the American people. Fourth: I insist upon an army and navy of a strength which guarantees that no foreign soldier will land upon the American soil. That strength is relative to other nations. I favor every arms reduction which preserves that relationship. I favor rigidly restricted immigration. I have by executive direction in order to relieve us of added unemployment, already reduced the inward movement to less than the outward movement. I shall adhere to that policy. Sixth: I have repeatedly recommended to the Congress a revision of railway transportation laws, in order that we may create greater stability and greater assurance of that vital service in our transportation. I shall Persist in it. I have repeatedly recommended the Federal regulation of interstate power. I shall persist in that. I have opposed the Federal Government undertaking the operation of the power business. I shall continue in that opposition. I have for years supported the conservation of national resources. I have made frequent recommendations to the Congress in respect thereto, including legislation to correct the waste and destruction of these resources through the present interpretations of the antitrust laws. I shall continue to urge such action. This depression has exposed many weaknesses in our economic system. There has been exploitation and abuse of financial power. We will fearlessly and unremittingly reform these abuses. I have recommended to the Congress the reform of our banking laws. Unfortunately this legislation has not yet been enacted. The American people must have protection from insecure banking through a stronger banking system. They must be relieved from conditions which permit the credit machinery of the country to be made available without check for wholesale speculation in securities with ruinous consequence to millions of our citizens and to our national economy. I have recommended to Congress methods of emergency relief to the depositors of closed banks. For 7 years I have repeatedly warned against private loans abroad for nonproductive purposes. I shall persist in all those matters. I have insisted upon a balanced budget as the foundation of all public and private financial stability and of all public confidence. I shall insist on the maintenance of that policy. Recent increases in revenues, while temporary, should be again examined, and if they tend to sap the vitality of industry, and thus retard employment, they should be revised. The first necessity of the Nation, the wealth and income of whose citizens has been reduced, is to reduce the expenditures on government-national, State, and local. It is in the relief of taxes from the backs of men through which we liberate their powers. It is through lower expenditures that we get lower taxes. This must be done. A considerable reduction in Federal expenditures has been attained. If we except those extraordinary expenditures imposed upon us by the depression, it will be found that the Federal Government is operating some $200 million less annually today than 4 years ago. The Congress rejected recommendations from the administration which would have saved an additional $150 million this fiscal year. The opposition leadership insisted, as the price of vital reconstruction legislation and over the protest of our leaders, upon adding $300 million of costs to the taxpayer through public works inadvisable at this time. I shall repeat these proposals for economy. The opposition leadership in the House of Representatives in the last 4 months secured the passage by that House of $3 billion in raids upon the Public Treasury. They have been stopped, and I shall continue to oppose such raids. I have repeatedly for 7 years urged the Congress either themselves to abolish obsolete bureaus and commissions and to reorganize the whole Government structure in the interest of economy, or to give someone the authority to do it. I have succeeded partially in securing that authority, but I regret that no great act under it can be effective until after the approval of the next Congress. With the collapse of world prices and the depreciated currencies the farmer was never so dependent upon his tariff protection for recovery as he is at the present time. We shall hold to that as a national policy. We have enacted many measures of emergency relief to agriculture. They are having their effect. I shall keep them functioning until the strain is past. The original purpose of the Farm Board was to strengthen the efforts of the farmer to establish his own farmer-owned, farmer controlled marketing agencies. It has greatly succeeded in this purpose, even in these times of adversity. The departure of the Farm Board from its original purpose by making loans to farmers' cooperatives to preserve prices from panic served an emergency, but such an action in normal times is absolutely destructive of the farmers' own interest. We still have vast problems to solve in agriculture. But no power on Earth can restore prices except by restoration of the general recovery and by restoration of markets. Every measure that we have taken looking to general recovery is of benefit to the farmer. There is no relief to the farmer by extending governmental bureaucracy to control his production and thus to curtail his liberties, nor by subsidies that bring only more bureaucracy and their ultimate collapse. And I shall continue to oppose them. The most practicable relief to the farmer today aside from general economic recovery is a definite program of readjustment and coordination of national, State, and local taxation which will relieve real property, especially the farms, from the unfair burdens of taxation which the current readjustment in values have brought about. To that purpose I propose to devote myself. I have always favored the development of rivers and harbors and highways. These improvements have been greatly expedited in the last 30 years. We shall continue that work to completion. After 20 years of discussion between the United States and our great neighbor to the north, I have signed a treaty for the construction of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence seaway. That treaty does not injure the Chicago to the Gulf waterway, the work upon which, together with the whole Mississippi system, I have expedited, and in which I am equally interested. We shall undertake this great seaway, the greatest public improvement ever undertaken upon our continent, with its consequent employment of men as quickly as that treaty can be ratified. Our views upon sound currency require no elucidation. They are indelibly a part of Republican history and policies. We have affirmed them by preventing the Democratic majority in the House from effecting wild schemes of uncontrolled inflation in the last 4 months. There are many other important subjects set forth in the platform and in my public statements in the past for which I will not take your time. There are one or two others that do merit some emphasis. The leadership of the Federal Government is not to be confined to economic and international questions. There are problems of the home and the education of children and of citizenship. They are the most vital of all to the future of the Nation. Except in the case of aids to States which I have recommended for stimulation of the protection and health of children, they are not matters of legislation. We have given leadership to the initiative of our people for social advancement through this organization against illiteracy, through the White House conferences on the protection and health of children, through the national conferences on homeownership, through the stimulation of social and recreational agencies. These are the visible evidences of spiritual leadership in the Government. They will be continued, and they will be constantly invigorated. My foreign policies have been devoted to strengthening the foundations of world peace. We inaugurated the London Naval Treaty which reduced arms and limited the ratios between the fleets of the three powers. We have made concrete proposals at Geneva to reduce the armaments of the world by one-third. It would save the taxpayers of the world a billion a year. We could save ourselves 200 millions a year. It would reduce fear and danger of war. We have expanded the arbitration of disputes. I have recommended joining the World Court under proper reservations preserving our freedom of action. Above all, we have given leadership in the transforming of the Kellogg-Briand Pact from an inspiring outlawry of war to an organized instrument for peaceful settlements backed by definite mobilized world public opinion against aggression. We shall, under the spirit of that pact, consult with other nations in time of emergency to promote world peace. We shall enter into no agreements committing us to any future course of action or which call for use of force in order to preserve peace. I have projected a new doctrine into international affairs--the doctrine that we do not and never will recognize title to the possession of territory gained in violation of the peace pacts which were signed with us. That doctrine has been accepted by all the nations of the world on a recent critical occasion, and within the last few days has been again accepted by all the nations of the Western Hemisphere. That is public opinion made tangible and effective. The world needs peace. It must have peace with justice. I shall continue to strive unceasingly, with every power of mind and spirit, to explore every possible path that leads towards a world in which right triumphs over force, in which reason rules over passion, in which men and women may rear their children not to be devoured by war but to pursue in safety the nobler arts of peace. I shall continue to build upon these designs. Across the path of the Nation's consideration of these vast problems of economic and social order there has arisen a bitter controversy over the control of the liquor traffic. I have always sympathized with the high purpose of the 18th amendment, and I have used every power at my command to make it effective over this entire country. I have hoped that it was the final solution of the evils of the liquor traffic against which our people have striven for generations. It has succeeded in great measure in those many communities where the majority sentiment is favorable to it. But in other and increasing numbers of communities there is a majority sentiment unfavorable to it. Laws which are opposed by the majority sentiment create resentments which undermine enforcement and in the end produce degeneration and crime. Our opponents pledge the members of their party to destroy every vestige of constitutional and effective Federal control of the traffic. That means that over large areas the return of the saloon system with its corruption, its moral and social abuse which debauched the home, its deliberate interference with the States endeavoring to find honest solution, its permeation of political parties, its perversion of legislatures, which reached even to the Capital of the Nation. The 18th amendment smashed that regime as by a stroke of lightning. I cannot consent to the return of that system again. We must recognize the difficulties which have developed in making the 18th amendment effective and that grave abuses have grown up. In order to secure the enforcement of the amendment under our dual form of government, the constitutional provision called for concurrent action on one hand by the State and local authorities and on the other by the Federal Government. Its enforcement requires, therefore, independent but coincident action of both agencies. An increasing number of States and municipalities are proving themselves unwilling to engage in that enforcement. Due to these forces there is in large sections increasing illegal traffic in liquor. But worse than this there has been in those areas a spread of disrespect not only for this law but for all laws, grave dangers of practical nullification of the Constitution, an increase in subsidized crime and violence. I cannot consent to a continuation of that regime. I refuse to accept either of these destinies, on the one hand to return to the old saloon with its political and social corruption, or on the other to endure the bootlegger and the speakeasy with their abuses and crime. Either of them are intolerable, and they are not the only ways out. Now, our objective must be a sane solution, not a blind leap back to old evils. Moreover, a step backwards would result in a chaos of new evils not yet experienced, because the local systems of prohibition and controls which were developed over generations have been in a large degree abandoned under this amendment. The Republican platform recommends submission of the question to the States and that the people themselves may determine whether they desire a change, but insists that this submission shall propose a constructive and not a destructive change. It does not dictate to the conscience of any member of the party. The first duty of the President of the United States is to enforce the laws as they exist. That I shall continue to do to the best of my ability. Any other course would be the abrogation of the very guarantees of liberty itself. Now, the Constitution gives the President no power or authority with respect to changes in the Constitution itself; nevertheless, my countrymen have a right to know my conclusions upon this question. They are based upon the broad facts that I have stated, upon my experience in this high office, and upon my deep conviction that our purpose must be the elimination of the evils of this traffic from this civilization by practical measures. It is my belief that in order to remedy present evils a change is necessary by which we resummon a proper share of initiative and responsibility which the very essence of our Government demands shall rest upon the States and the local authorities. That change must avoid the return of the saloon. It is my conviction that the nature of this change, and one upon which all reasonable people can find common ground, is that each State shall be given the right to deal with the problem as it may determine, but subject to the absolute guarantees in the Constitution of the United States to protect each State from interference and invasion by its neighbors, and that in no part of the United States shall there be a return of the saloon system with its inevitable political and social corruption and its organized interference with other States and other communities. American statesmanship is capable of working out such a solution and making it effective. My fellow citizens, the discussion of great problems of economic life and of government seem abstract and cold. But within their right solution lies the happiness and the hope of a great people. Without such solution all else is mere verbal sympathy. Today millions of our fellow countrymen are out of work. Prices of farmers' products are below a living standard. Many millions more who are in business or hold employment are haunted by fears for the future. No man with a spark of humanity can sit in my place without suffering from the picture of their anxieties and hardships before him day and night. They would be more than human if they were not led to blame their condition upon the government in power. I have understood their sufferings and have worked to the limits of my strength to produce action that would be of help to them. Much remains to be done to attain recovery. We have had a great and unparalleled shock. The emergency measures now in action represent an unparalleled use of national power to relieve distress, to provide employment, to serve agriculture, to preserve the stability of the Government, and to maintain the integrity of our institutions. Our policies prevent unemployment caused by floods of imported goods and of laborers. Our policies preserve peace in the world. They embrace cooperation with other nations in those fields in which we can serve. With patience and perseverance these measures will succeed. Despite the dislocation of economic life our great tools of production and distribution are more efficient than ever before; our fabulous national resources, our farms and homes and our skill are unimpaired. From the hard-won experience of this depression we shall build stronger methods of prevention and stronger methods of protection to our people from abuses that have become evident. We shall march to a far greater accomplishment. With the united effort we can and will turn the tide towards the restoration of business, of employment, and of agriculture. It does call for the utmost devotion and the utmost wisdom. Every reserve of American courage and vision must be called upon to sustain us and to plan wisely for the future. Through it all our first duty is to preserve unfettered that dominant American spirit which has produced our enterprise and our individual character. That is the bedrock of the past, and it is the sole guarantee of the future. Not regimented mechanisms but free men are our goal. Herein is the fundamental issue. A representative democracy, progressive and unafraid to meet its problems, but meeting them upon the foundations of experience and not upon the wave of emotion or the insensate demands of a radicalism which grasps at every opportunity to exploit the sufferings of a people. With these courses we shall emerge from this great national strain with our American system of life and government strengthened. Our people will be free to reassert their energy and their enterprise in a society eager to reward in full measure those whose industry serves its well-being. Our youth will find the doors of equal opportunity still open. The problems of the next few years are not only economic. They are also moral and spiritual. The present check to our material success must deeply stir our national conscience upon the purposes of life itself. It must cause us to revalue and reshape our drift from materialism to a higher note of individual and national ideals. Underlying every purpose is the spiritual application of moral ideals which are the fundamental basis of the happiness of a people. This is a land of homes and of churches and schoolhouses dedicated to the sober and enduring satisfactions of family life and the rearing of children in an atmosphere of ideals and of religious faith. Only with those ideals and those high standards can we hold society together, and only from them can government survive and business prosper. They are the sole insurance to the safety of our children and to the continuity of the Nation. If it shall appear that while I have had the honor of the Presidency that I have contributed to the part required from this high office to bringing the Republic through this dark night, and if in my administration we shall see the break of dawn of the better day, I shall have done my part in the world. No man can have a greater honor than that. I have but one desire: that is, to see my country again on the road to prosperity which shall be more sane and lasting through the lessons of this experience, to see the principles and ideals of the American people perpetuated. I rest the case of the Republican Party upon the intelligence and the just discernment of the American people. Should my countrymen again place upon me the responsibilities of this high office, I shall carry forward the work of reconstruction. I shall hope long before another 4 years have passed to see the world prosperous and at peace and every American home again in the sunshine of genuine progress and of genuine prosperity. I shall seek to maintain untarnished and unweakened those fundamental traditions and principles upon which our Nation was rounded, upon which it has grown. I shall invite and welcome the help of every man and woman in the preservation of the United States for the happiness of its people. This is my pledge to the Nation and my pledge to the Almighty God. Source: https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/august-11-1932-speech-accepting-republican-nomination

September 30, 2004   Jim Lehrer.  Good evening from the University of Miami Convocation Center in Coral Gables, Florida. I'm Jim Lehrer of the News Hour on PBS. And I welcome you to the first of the 2004 Presidential debates between President George W. Bush, the Republican nominee, and Senator John Kerry, the Democratic nominee. These debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. Tonight's will last 90 minutes, following detailed rules of engagement worked out by representatives of the candidates. I have agreed to enforce their rules on them. The umbrella topic is foreign policy and homeland security. But the specific subjects were chosen by me. The questions were composed by me. The candidates have not been told what they are, nor has anyone else. For each question, there can only be a 2-minute response, a 90-second rebuttal, and at my discretion, a discussion extension of 1 minute. A green light will come on when 30 seconds remain in any given answer, yellow at 15, red at 5 seconds, and then flashing red means time's up. There is also a backup buzzer system if needed. Candidates may not direct a question to each other. There will be 2-minute closing statements but no opening statements. There is an audience here in the hall, but they will remain absolutely silent for the next 90 minutes, except for now, when they join me in welcoming President Bush and Senator Kerry. [ Applause ] Good evening, Mr. President, Senator Kerry. As determined by a coin toss, the first question goes to you, Senator Kerry. You have 2 minutes. Preventing Future Terrorist Attacks Do you believe you could do a better job than President Bush in preventing another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States? Senator Kerry.  Yes, I do. But before I answer further, let me thank you for moderating. I want to thank the University of Miami for hosting us. And I know the President will join me in welcoming all of Florida to this debate. You've been through the roughest weeks anybody could imagine. Our hearts go out to you, and we admire your pluck and perseverance. I can make America safer than President Bush has made us. And I believe President Bush and I both love our country equally, but we just have a different set of convictions about how you make America safe. I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and when we are leading strong alliances. I'll never give a veto to any country over our security, but I also know how to lead those alliances. This President has left them in shatters across the globe, and we're now 90 percent of the casualties in Iraq and 90 percent of the costs. I think that's wrong, and I think we can do better. I have a better plan for homeland security. I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror: by strengthening our military; strengthening our intelligence; by going after the financing more authoritatively; by doing what we need to do to rebuild the alliances; by reaching out to the Muslim world, which the President has almost not done; and beginning to isolate the radical Islamic Muslims, not have them isolate the United States of America. I know I can do a better job in Iraq, where I have a plan to have a summit with all of the allies, something this President has not yet achieved, not yet been able to do to bring people to the table. We can do a better job of training the Iraqi forces to defend themselves. And I know that we can do a better job of preparing for elections. All of these, and especially homeland security, which we'll talk about a little bit later. Mr. Lehrer.  Mr. President, you have a 90-second rebut. President Bush.  I too thank the University of Miami and say our prayers are with the good people of this State who've suffered a lot. September the 11th changed how America must look at the world. And since that day, our Nation has been on a multipronged strategy to keep our country safer. We've pursued Al Qaida wherever Al Qaida tries to hide; 75 percent of known Al Qaida leaders have been brought to justice. The rest of them know we're after them. We've upheld the doctrine that said, "If you harbor a terrorist, you're equally as guilty as the terrorist." And the Taliban, no longer in power; 10 million people have registered to vote in Afghanistan in the upcoming Presidential election. In Iraq, we saw a threat, and we realized that after September the 11th, we must take threats seriously before they fully materialize. Saddam Hussein now sits in a prison cell. America and the world are safer for it. We continue to pursue our policy of disrupting those who proliferate weapons of mass destruction. Libya has disarmed. The A.Q. Khan network has been brought to justice. And as well, we're pursuing a strategy of—of freedom around the world, because I understand free nations will reject terror; free nations will answer the hopes and aspirations of their people; free nations will help us achieve the peace we all want. Likelihood of Future Terrorist Attack Mr. Lehrer.  New question, Mr. President, 2 minutes. Do you believe the election of Senator Kerry on November the 2d would increase the chances of the U.S. being hit by another 9/11-type terrorist attack? President Bush.  No, I don't believe it's going to happen. I believe I'm going to win because the American people know I know how to lead. I've shown the American people I know how to lead. I have—I understand everybody in this country doesn't agree with the decisions that I've made, and I made some tough decisions. But people know where I stand. People out there listening know what I believe, and that's how best it is to keep the peace. This Nation of ours has got a solemn duty to defeat this ideology of hate, and that's what they are. This is a group of killers who will not only kill here but kill children in Russia, that will attack unmercifully in Iraq hoping to shake our will. We have a duty to defeat this enemy. We have a duty to protect our children and grandchildren. The best way to defeat them is to never waver, to be strong, to use every asset at our disposal, is to constantly stay on the offensive, and at the same time, spread liberty. And that's what people are seeing now is happening in Afghanistan. Ten million citizens have registered to vote. It's a phenomenal statistic, that if given a chance to be free, they will show up at the polls. Forty-one percent of those 10 million are women. In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. You know why? Because an enemy realizes the stakes. The enemy understands a free Iraq will be a major defeat in their ideology of hatred. That's why they're fighting so vociferously. They showed up in Afghanistan when they were there because they tried to beat us, and they didn't. And they're showing up in Iraq for the same reason. They're trying to defeat us. And if we lose our will, we lose. But if we remain strong and resolute, we will defeat this enemy. Mr. Lehrer.  Ninety-second response, Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry.  I believe in being strong and resolute and determined, and I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But we also have to be smart, Jim, and smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Usama bin Laden and taking it off to Iraq, where the 9/11 Commission confirms there was no connection to 9/11 itself and Saddam Hussein, and where the reason for going to war was weapons of mass destruction, not the removal of Saddam Hussein. This President has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the President of the United States of America. I'm proud that important military figures are supporting me in this race: former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili; just yesterday General Eisenhower's son, General John Eisenhower, endorsed me; General—Admiral William Crowe; General Tony McPeak, who ran the Air Force war so effectively for his father. All believe I would make a stronger Commander in Chief. And they believe it because they know I would not take my eye off of the goal, Usama bin Laden. Unfortunately, he escaped in the mountains of Tora Bora. We had him surrounded. But we didn't use American forces, the best trained in the world, to go kill him. The President relied on Afghan warlords that he outsourced that job to. That's wrong. President's Judgment on Foreign Policy Mr. Lehrer.  New question, 2 minutes, Senator Kerry. "Colossal" misjudgments— what colossal misjudgments, in your opinion, has President Bush made in these areas? Senator Kerry.  Well, where do you want me to begin? [ Laughter ] First of all, he made the misjudgment of saying to America that he was going to build a true alliance, that he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through the inspections. In fact, he first didn't even want to do that, and it wasn't until former Secretary of State Jim Baker and General Scowcroft and others pushed publicly and said, "You've got to go to the U.N.," that the President finally changed his mind— his campaign has a word for that—and went to the United Nations. Now, once there, we could have continued those inspections. We had Saddam Hussein trapped. He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort. Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat, "last resort." You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, "I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter." I don't believe the United States did that, and we pushed our allies aside. And so today, we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the cost, $200 billion—$200 billion that could have been used for health care, for schools, for construction, for prescription drugs for seniors, and it's in Iraq. And Iraq is not even the center of the focus of the war on terror. The center is Afghanistan where, incidentally, there were more Americans killed last year than the year before, where the opium production is 75 percent of the world's opium production, where 40 to 60 percent of the economy of Afghanistan is based on opium, where the elections have been postponed 3 times. The President moved the troops, so he's got 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than he has in Afghanistan, where Usama bin Laden is. Does that mean that Saddam Hussein was 10 times more important than Usama bin Laden— excuse me—Saddam Hussein more important than Usama bin Laden? I don't think so. Mr. Lehrer.  Ninety-second response, Mr. President. President Bush.  My opponent looked at the same intelligence I looked at and declared, in 2002, that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat. He also said, in December of 2003, that anyone who doubts that the world is safer without Saddam Hussein does not have the judgment to be President. I agree with him. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein. I was hoping diplomacy would work. I understand the serious consequences of committing our troops into harm's way. It's the hardest decision a President makes. So I went to the United Nations. I didn't need anybody to tell me to go to the United Nations; I decided to go there myself. And I went there hoping that, once and for all, the free world would act in concert to get Saddam Hussein to listen to our demands. And they passed a resolution that said, "Disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences." I believe when an international body speaks, it must mean what it says. But Saddam Hussein had no intention of disarming. Why should he? He had 16 other resolutions, and nothing took place. As a matter of fact—my opponent talks about inspectors—the facts are that he was systematically deceiving the inspectors. That wasn't going to work. That's kind of a pre-September-10th mentality, to hope that somehow resolutions and failed inspections would make this world a more peaceful place. He was hoping we'd turn away. But there was, fortunately, others beside myself who believed that we ought to take action, and we did. The world is safer without Saddam Hussein. Priorities in the War on Terror Mr. Lehrer.  New question, Mr. President, 2 minutes. What about Senator Kerry's point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Usama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein? President Bush.  Jim, we've got the capability of doing both. As a matter of fact, this is a global effort. We're facing a— a group of folks who have such hatred in their heart, they'll strike anywhere with any means. And that's why it's essential that we have strong alliances, and we do. That's why it's essential that we make sure that we keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of people like Al Qaida, which we are. But to say that there's only one focus on the war on terror doesn't really understand the nature of the war on terror. Of course we're after Saddam Hussein— I mean, bin Laden. He's—he's isolated. Seventy-five percent of his people have been brought to justice. The killer in—the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammad, is in prison. We're making progress, but the front on this war is more than just one place. The Philippines—we've got help—we're helping them there to bring—to bring Al Qaida affiliates to justice there. And of course Iraq is a central part of the war on terror. That's why Zarqawi and his people are trying to fight us. Their hope is that we grow weary and we leave. The biggest disaster that could happen is that we not succeed in Iraq. We will succeed. We've got a plan to do so, and the main reason we'll succeed is because the Iraqis want to be free. I had the honor of visiting with Prime Minister Allawi. He's a strong, courageous leader. He believes in the freedom of the Iraqi people. He doesn't want U.S. leadership, however, to send mixed signals, to not stand with the Iraqi people. He believes, like I believe, that the Iraqis are ready to fight for their own freedom. They just need the help to be trained. There will be elections in January. We're spending reconstruction money. And our alliance is strong. That's the plan for victory. And when Iraq is free, America will be more secure. Mr. Lehrer.  Senator Kerry, 90 seconds. Senator Kerry.  The President just talked about Iraq as a center of the war on terror. Iraq was not even close to the center of the war on terror before the President invaded it. The President made the judgment to divert forces from under General Tommy Franks from Afghanistan before the Congress even approved it, to begin to prepare to go to war in Iraq. And he rushed to war in Iraq without a plan to win the peace. Now, that is not the judgment that a President of the United States ought to make. You don't take America to war unless you have a plan to win the peace. You don't send troops to war without the body armor that they need. I've met kids in Ohio, parents in Wisconsin, places—Iowa, where they're going out on the Internet to get the state-of-the-art body gear to send to their kids—some of them have got them for a birthday present. I think that's wrong. Humvees—10,000 out of 12,000 Humvees that are over there aren't armored. And you go visit some of those kids in the hospitals today who were maimed because they don't have the armament. This President just—I don't know if he sees what's really happening out there, but it's getting worse by the day—more soldiers killed in June than before, more in July than June, more in August than July, more in September than in August. And now we see beheadings, and we've got weapons of mass destruction crossing the border every single day, and they're blowing people up. And we don't have enough troops there. President Bush.  Can I respond? Mr. Lehrer.  Let's do a—one of these one-minute extensions. You have 30 seconds. President Bush.  Thank you, sir. First of all, what my opponent wants you to forget is that he voted to authorize the use of force and now says, "It's the wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place." I don't see how you can lead this country to succeed in Iraq if you say "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place." What message does that send our troops? What message does that send our allies? What message does that send the Iraqis? No, the way to win this is to be steadfast and resolved and to follow through on the plan that I've just outlined. Mr. Lehrer.  Thirty seconds, Senator. Senator Kerry.  Yes, we have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a mistake of judgment to go there and take the focus off of Usama bin Laden. It was. Now, we can succeed, but I don't believe this President can. I think we need a President who has the credibility to bring the allies back to the table and to do what's necessary to make it so America isn't doing this alone. Homeland Security Mr. Lehrer.  We'll come back to Iraq in a moment, but I want to come back to where I began, on homeland security. This is a 2-minute new question. Senator Kerry, as President, what would you do specifically, in addition to or differently, to increase the homeland security of the United States, than what President Bush is doing? Senator Kerry.  Jim, let me tell you exactly what I'll do, and there are a long list of things. First of all, what kind of mixed message does it send when you've got $500 million going over to Iraq to put police officers in the streets of Iraq and the President is cutting the COPS program in America? What kind of message does it send to be sending money to open firehouses in Iraq, but we're shutting firehouses, who are the first-responders, here in America? The President hasn't put one nickel— not one nickel—into the effort to fix some of our tunnels and bridges and most exposed subway systems. That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there. We hadn't done the work that ought to be done. The President—95 percent of the containers that come into the ports, right here in Florida, are not inspected. Civilians get onto aircraft, and their—their luggage is X-rayed, but the cargo hold is not X-rayed. Does that make you feel safer in America? This President thought it was more important to give the wealthiest people in America a tax cut rather than invest in homeland security. Those aren't my values. I believe in protecting America first. And long before President Bush and I get a tax cut—and that's who gets it—long before we do, I'm going to invest in homeland security, and I'm going to make sure we're not cutting COPS programs in America, and we're fully staffed at our firehouses and that we protect the nuclear and chemical plants. The President also, unfortunately, gave in to the chemical industry, which didn't want to do some of the things necessary to strengthen our chemical plant exposure. And there's an enormous undone job to protect the loose nuclear materials in the world that are able to get to terrorists. That's a whole other subject, but—I see we still have a little bit more time. Let me just quickly say, at the current pace the President will not secure the loose material in the Soviet Union—former Soviet Union for 13 years. I'm going to do it in 4 years. And we're going to keep it out of the hands of terrorists. Mr. Lehrer.  Ninety-second response, Mr. President. President Bush.  I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises. It's like a huge tax gap and—anyway, that's for another debate. My administration has tripled the amount of money we're spending on homeland security, to $30 billion a year. My administration worked with the Congress to create the Department of Homeland Security so we could better coordinate our borders and ports. We've got 1,000 extra Border Patrol on the southern border, more than 1,000 on the northern border. We're modernizing our borders. We've spent $3.1 billion for fire and police—$3.1 billion. We're doing our duty to provide the funding. But the best way to protect this homeland is to stay on the offense. We have to be right 100 percent of the time, and the enemy only has to be right once to hurt us. There's a lot of good people working hard. And by the way, we've also changed the culture of the FBI to have counterterrorism as its number one priority. We're communicating better. We're going to reform our intelligence services to make sure that we get the best intelligence possible. The PATRIOT Act is vital. It's vital that the Congress renew the PATRIOT Act, which enables our law enforcement to disrupt terrorist cells. But again, I repeat to my fellow citizens, the best way to protect you is to stay on the offense. Mr. Lehrer.  Yes, let's do a little—yes, 30 seconds. Senator Kerry.  The President just said the FBI had changed its culture. We just read on the front pages of America's papers that there are over 100,000 hours of tapes unlistened to. On one of those tapes may be the enemy being right the next time. And the test is not whether you're spending more money. The test is, are you doing everything possible to make America safe? We didn't need that tax cut. America needed to be safe. President Bush.  Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America. I wake up every day thinking about how best to protect America. That's my job. I work with Director Mueller of the FBI. He comes into my office, when I'm in Washington, every morning talking about how to protect us. There's a lot of really good people working hard to do so. It's hard work. But again, I want to tell the American people, we're doing everything we can at home, but you better have a President who chases these terrorists down and bring them to justice before they hurt us again. Criteria for Withdrawal of U.S. Troops From Iraq Mr. Lehrer.  New question, Mr. President, 2 minutes. What criteria would you use to determine when to start bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq? President Bush.  Let me first tell you that the best way for Iraq to be safe and secure is for Iraqi citizens to be trained to do the job. And that's what we're doing. We got 100,000 trained now, 125,000 by the end of this year, over 200,000 by the end of next year. That is the best way. We'll never succeed in Iraq if the Iraqi citizens do not want to take matters into their own hands and protect themselves. I believe they want to. Prime Minister Allawi believes they want to. And so the best indication about when we can bring our troops home—which I really want to do, but I don't want to do so for the sake of bringing them home; I want to do so because we've achieved an objective—is to see the Iraqis perform, is to see the Iraqis step up and take responsibility. And so the answer to your question is, when our generals on the ground and Ambassador Negroponte tells me that Iraq is ready to defend herself from these terrorists, that elections will have been held by then, that there's stability, and that they're on their way to—you know, a nation of— that's free. That's when. And I hope it's as soon as possible. But I know putting artificial deadlines won't work. My opponent one time said, "Well, get me elected, I'll have them out of there in 6 months." That's—you can't do that and expect to win the war on terror. My message to our troops is: Thank you for what you're doing; we're standing with you strong; we'll give you all the equipment you need; and we'll get you home as soon as the mission's done, because this is a vital mission. A free Iraq will be a ally in the war on terror, and that's essential. A free Iraq will set a powerful example in the part of the world that is desperate for freedom. A free Iraq will help secure Israel. A free Iraq will enforce the hopes and aspirations of the reformers in places like Iran. A free Iraq is essential for the security of this country. Mr. Lehrer.  Ninety seconds, Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry.  Thank you, Jim. My message to the troops is also "Thank you" for what they're doing, but it's also, "Help is on the way." I believe those troops deserve better than what they are getting today. You know, it's interesting, when I was in the ropeline just the other day coming out here from Wisconsin, a couple of young returnees were in the line, one active duty, one from the Guard. And they both looked at me and said, "We need you. You've got to help us over there." Now, I believe there's a better way to do this. You know, the President's father did not go into Iraq—into Baghdad, beyond Basra. And the reason he didn't is, he said—he wrote in his book, because there was no viable exit strategy. And he said our troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land. That's exactly where we find ourselves today. There's a sense of American occupation. The only building that was guarded when the troops went into Baghdad was the oil ministry. We didn't guard the nuclear facilities. We didn't guard the foreign office, where you might have found information about weapons of mass destruction. We didn't guard the borders. Almost every step of the way, our troops have been left on these extraordinarily difficult missions. I know what it's like to go out on one of those missions where you don't know what's around the corner. And I believe our troops need other allies helping. I'm going to hold that summit. I will bring fresh credibility, a new start, and we will get the job done right. Mr. Lehrer.  New—— President Bush.  Jim—— Mr. Lehrer.  All right, go ahead. Yes, sir. President Bush.  I think it's worthy for a followup—— Mr. Lehrer.  Sure. President Bush.  ——if you don't mind. Senator Kerry.  Let's change the rules. We can add a whole—[ inaudible ]. Mr. Lehrer.  We can do 30 seconds each here. President Bush.  All right. My opponent says, "Help is on the way," but what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way, "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time"? That's not a message a Commander in Chief gives—or "This is a great diversion." As well, help is on the way, but it's certainly hard to tell it when he voted against the $87 billion supplemental to provide equipment for our troops and then said he actually did vote for it before he voted against it. That's not what Commander in Chiefs does when you're trying to lead troops. Mr. Lehrer.  Senator Kerry, 30 seconds. Senator Kerry.  Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the President made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse? I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war, I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that's what I did with that vote. And I'm going to lead those troops to victory. Planning and International Cooperation in Iraq Mr. Lehrer.  All right, new question, 2 minutes, Senator Kerry. Speaking of Vietnam, you spoke to Congress in 1971, after you came back from Vietnam, and you said, quote, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake? Senator Kerry.  No, and they don't have to, providing we have the leadership that we put—that I'm offering. I believe that we have to win this. The President and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat. And I did accept that—that intelligence. But I also laid out a very strict series of things we needed to do in order to proceed from the position of strength, and the President, in fact, promised them. He went to Cincinnati, and he gave a speech in which he said, "We will plan carefully. We will proceed cautiously. We will not make war inevitable. We will go with our allies." He didn't do any of those things. They didn't do the planning. They left the planning of the State Department on the State Department desks. They avoided even the advice of their own general. General Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, said, "You're going to need several hundred thousand troops." Instead of listening to him, they retired him. The terrorism czar, who has worked for every President since Ronald Reagan, said, "Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor." That's what we have here. And what we need now is a President who understands how to bring these other countries together to recognize their stakes in this. They do have stakes in it. They've always had stakes in it. The Arab countries have a stake in not having a civil war. The European countries have a stake in not having total disorder on their doorstep. But this President hasn't even held the kind of statesmanlike summits that pull people together and get them to invest in those stakes. In fact, he's done the opposite; he pushed them away. When the Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, offered the United Nations, he said, "No, no, we'll go do this alone." To save for Halliburton the spoils of the war, they actually issued a memorandum from the Defense Department saying, "If you weren't with us in the war, don't bother applying for any construction." That's not a way to invite people. Mr. Lehrer.  Ninety seconds. President Bush.  That's totally absurd. Of course the U.N. was invited in, and we support the U.N. efforts there. They pulled out after Sergio de Mello got killed, but they're now back in, helping with elections. My opponent says we didn't have any allies in this war? What's he say to Tony Blair? What's he say to Aleksander Kwasniewski of Poland? I mean, you can't expect to build an alliance when you denigrate the contributions of those who are serving side by side with American troops in Iraq. Plus, he says the cornerstone of his plan to succeed in Iraq is to call upon nations to serve. So what's the message going to be? "Please join us in Iraq for a grand diversion"? "Join us for a war that is a wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time"? I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time. I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently. They're not going to follow somebody who says this is "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time." They're not going to follow somebody whose core convictions keep changing because of politics in America. And finally, he says we ought to have a summit. Well, there are summits being held. Japan is going to have a summit for the donors. There's $14 billion pledged, and Prime Minister Koizumi is going to call countries to account to get them to contribute. And there's going to be an Arab summit of the neighborhood countries, and Colin Powell helped set up that summit. Mr. Lehrer.  Thirty seconds, Senator. Senator Kerry.  The United Nations' Kofi Annan offered help after Baghdad fell. And we never picked him up on that and did what was necessary to transfer authority and to transfer reconstruction. It was always American-run. Secondly, when we went in, there were three countries, Great Britain, Australia, and the United States. That's not a grand coalition. We can do better. Mr. Lehrer.  Thirty seconds, Mr. President. President Bush.  Well, actually, he forgot Poland. And now, there are 30 nations involved, standing side by side with our American troops, and I honor their sacrifices. And I don't appreciate it when a candidate for President denigrates the contributions of these brave—brave soldiers. It's—you cannot lead the world if you do not honor the contributions of those who are with us. He called them the "coerced and the bribed." That's not how you bring people together. Our coalition is strong. It will remain strong, for my—so long as I'm the President. Postwar Iraq Mr. Lehrer.  New question, Mr. President, 2 minutes. You have said there was a, quote, "miscalculation of what the conditions would be in postwar Iraq." What was the miscalculation, and how did it happen? President Bush.  No, what I said was that because we achieved such a rapid victory, more of the Saddam loyalists were around. In other words, we thought we'd whip more of them going in. But because Tommy Franks did such a great job in planning the operations, we moved rapidly, and a lot of the Ba'athists and Saddam loyalists laid down their arms and disappeared. I thought we would—they would stay and fight, but they didn't. And now we're fighting them now. It's—and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is, but it's necessary work. And I'm optimistic. See, I think you can be realistic and optimistic at the same time. I'm optimistic we'll achieve—I know we won't achieve if we send mixed signals. I know we're not going to achieve our objective if we send mixed signals to our troops, our friends, the Iraqi citizens. We've got a plan in place. The plan says there'll be elections in January, and there will be. The plan says we'll train Iraqi soldiers so they can do the hard work, and we are. And it's not only just America, but NATO is now helping. Jordan is helping train police. The UAE is helping train police. We've allocated $7 billion over the next months for reconstruction efforts, and we're making progress there. And our alliance is strong. Now, I just told you, there's going to be a summit of the Arab nations. Japan will be hosting a summit. We're making progress. It is hard work. It is hard work to go from a tyranny to a democracy. It's hard work to go from a place where people get their hands cut off or executed, to a place where people are free. But it's necessary work, and a free Iraq is going to make this world a more peaceful place. Mr. Lehrer.  Ninety seconds, Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry.  What I think troubles a lot of people in our country is that the President has just sort of described one kind of mistake, but what he has said is that even knowing there were no weapons of mass destruction, even knowing there was no imminent threat, even knowing there was no connection of Al Qaida, he would still have done everything the same way. Those are his words. Now, I would not. So what I'm trying to do is just talk the truth to the American people and to the world. Truth is what good policy is based on. It's what leadership is based on. The President says that I'm denigrating these troops. I have nothing but respect for the British and for Tony Blair and for what they've been willing to do. But you can't tell me that when the most troops any other country has on the ground is Great Britain with 8,300, and below that, the 4 others are below 4,000, and below that, there isn't anybody out of the hundreds, that we have a genuine coalition to get this job done. You can't tell me that on the day that we went into that war and it started, it was principally the United States, the—America and Great Britain and one or two others; that's it. And today we are 90 percent of the casualties and 90 percent of the costs. And meanwhile, North Korea has gotten nuclear weapons. Talk about mixed messages, the President is the one who said we can't allow countries to get nuclear weapons. They have. I'll change that. Candidates' Candor and Consistency Mr. Lehrer.  New question, Senator Kerry, 2 minutes. You've just—you've repeatedly accused President Bush, not here tonight but elsewhere before, of not telling the truth about Iraq, essentially of lying to the American people about Iraq. Give us some examples of what you consider to be his not telling the truth. Senator Kerry.  Well, I've never, ever used the harshest word, as you did just then, and I try not to. I've been—but I'll, nevertheless, tell you that I think he has not been candid with the American people, and I'll tell you exactly how. First of all, we all know that in his State of the Union Message he told Congress about nuclear materials that didn't exist. We know that he promised America that he was going to build this coalition. I just described the coalition. It is not the kind of coalition we were described when we were talking about voting for this. The President said he would exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and go through that full process. He didn't. He cut it off, sort of arbitrarily. And we know that there were further diplomatics—efforts underway. They just decided the time for diplomacy is over and rushed to war without planning for what happens afterwards. Now, he misled the American people in his speech when he said, "We will plan carefully." They obviously didn't. He misled the American people when he said, "We'd go to war as a last resort." We did not go as a last resort. And most Americans know the difference. Now, this has cost us deeply in the world. I believe that it is important to tell the truth to the American people. I've worked with those leaders the President talks about. I've worked with them for 20 years, for longer than this President, and I know what many of them say today, and I know how to bring them back to the table. And I believe that fresh start, new credibility, a President who can understand what we have to do to reach out to the Muslim world, to make it clear that this is not— you know, Usama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq in order to go out to people and say the—America has declared war on Islam. We need to be smarter about how we wage a war on terror. We need to deny them the recruits. We need to deny them the safe havens. We need to rebuild our alliances. I believe that Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, and others did that more effectively, and I'm going to try to follow in their footsteps. Mr. Lehrer.  Ninety seconds, Mr. President. President Bush.  My opponent just said something amazing. He said Usama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq as an excuse to spread hatred for America. Usama bin Laden isn't going to determine how we defend ourselves. Usama bin Laden doesn't get to decide. The American people decide. I decided. The right action was in Iraq. My opponent calls it a mistake. It wasn't a mistake. He said I misled on Iraq. I don't think he was misleading when he called Iraq a grave threat in the fall of 2002. I don't think he was misleading when he said that it was right to disarm Iraq in the spring of 2003. I don't think he misled you when he said that if—anyone who doubted whether the world was better off without Saddam Hussein in power didn't have the judgment to be President. I don't think he was misleading. I think what is misleading is to say you can lead and succeed in Iraq if you keep changing your positions on this war, and he has. As the politics change, his positions change, and that's not how a Commander in Chief acts. I—let me finish. The intelligence I looked at was the same intelligence my opponent looked at, the very same intelligence. And when I stood up there and spoke to the Congress, I was speaking off the same intelligence he looked at to make his decisions to support the authorization of force. Mr. Lehrer.  Thirty seconds—we'll do a 30-second here. Senator Kerry.  I wasn't misleading when I said he was a threat. Nor was I misleading on the day that the President decided to go to war when I said that he had made a mistake in not building strong alliances and that I would have preferred that he did more diplomacy. I've had one position, one consistent position, that Sad-dam Hussein was a threat; there was a right way to disarm him and a wrong way. And the President chose the wrong way. Mr. Lehrer.  Thirty seconds, Mr. President. President Bush.  The only thing consistent about my opponent's position is that he's been inconsistent. He changes positions. And you cannot change positions in this war on terror if you expect to win. And I expect to win. It's necessary we win. We're being challenged like never before, and we have a duty to our country and to future generations of America to achieve a free Iraq, a free Afghanistan, and to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction. Hard Decisions/Support for the Military Mr. Lehrer.  New question, Mr. President, 2 minutes. Has the war in Iraq been worth the cost in American lives? Ten thousand fifty two—I mean, 1,052 as of today. President Bush.  No, every life is precious. Every life matters. You know, my hardest—the hardest part of the job is to know that I committed the troops in harm's way and then do the best I can to provide comfort for the loved ones who lost a son or a daughter or a husband and wife. And you know, I think about Missy Johnson, who is a fantastic young lady I met in Charlotte, North Carolina, she and her son, Bryan. They came to see me. Her husband, P.J., got killed. He'd been in Afghanistan, went to Iraq. You know, it's hard work to try to love her as best as I can, knowing full well that the decision I made caused her loved one to be in harm's way. I told her, after we prayed and teared up and laughed some, that I thought her husband's sacrifice was noble and worthy, because I understand the stakes of this war on terror. I understand that we must find Al Qaida wherever they hide. We must deal with threats before they fully materialize— and Saddam Hussein was a threat—and that we must spread liberty, because in the long run, the way to defeat hatred and tyranny and oppression is to spread freedom. Missy understood that. That's what she told me her husband understood. So you say, was it worth it? Every life is precious. That's what distinguishes us from the enemy. Everybody matters. But I think it's worth it, Jim. I think it's worth it because I think—I know in the long term, a free Iraq, a free Afghanistan will set such a powerful example in the part of the world that's desperate for freedom— it will help change the world—that we can look back and say, "We did our duty." Mr. Lehrer.  Senator, 90 seconds. Senator Kerry.  I understand what the President is talking about, because I know what it means to lose people in combat. And the question, is it worth the cost, reminds me of my own thinking when I came back from fighting in that war, and it reminds me that it is vital for us not to confuse the war, ever, with the warriors. That happened before. And that's one of the reasons why I believe I can get this job done, because I am determined, for those soldiers and for those families, for those kids who put their lives on the line—that is noble. That's the most noble thing that anybody can do. And I want to make sure the outcome honors that nobility. Now, we have a choice here. I've laid out a plan by which I think we can be successful in Iraq, with a summit, by doing better training faster, by cutting—by doing what we need to do with respect to the U.N. and the elections. There's only 25 percent of the people in there. They can't have an election right now. The President is not getting the job done. So the choice for America is, you can have a plan that I've laid out in four points, each of which I can tell you more about, or you can go to johnkerry.com and see more of it, or you have the President's plan, which is four words, "More of the same." I think my plan is better. And my plan has a better chance of standing up and fighting for those troops. I will never let those troops down and will hunt and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. Mr. Lehrer.  New—all right, sir, go ahead. Thirty seconds. President Bush.  I understand what it means to be the Commander in Chief, and if I were to ever say this is the wrong war at the wrong time at the right—wrong place, the troops would wonder, "How can I follow this guy?" You cannot lead the war on terror if you keep changing positions on the war on terror and say things like, "Well, this is just a grand diversion." It's not a grand diversion. This is an essential, that we get it right. And so I—the plan he talks about simply won't work. Mr. Lehrer.  Senator Kerry, you have 30 seconds, right. Senator Kerry.  Secretary of State Colin Powell told this President the Pottery Barn rule: If you break it, you fix it. Now, if you break it, you made a mistake. It's the wrong thing to do, but you own it. And then you've got to fix it and do something with it. Now, that's what we have to do. There's no inconsistency. Soldiers know, over there, that this isn't being done right yet. I'm going to get it right for those soldiers, because it's important to Israel. It's important to America. It's important to the world. It's important to the fight on terror. But I have a plan to do it. He doesn't. Timeline for Withdrawal From Iraq/ Conditions in Iraq Mr. Lehrer.  Speaking of your plan, new question, Senator Kerry, 2 minutes. Can you give us specifics—in terms of a scenario, timelines, et cetera—for ending U.S.—major U.S. military involvement in Iraq? Senator Kerry.  The timeline that I've set out—and again, I want to correct the President, because he's misled again this evening on what I've said. I didn't say I would bring troops out in 6 months. I said, "If we do the things that I've set out, and we are successful, we could begin to draw the troops down in 6 months." And I think a critical component of success in Iraq is being able to convince the Iraqis and the Arab world that the United States doesn't have long-term designs on it. As I understand it, we're building some 14 military bases there now, and some people say they've got a rather permanent concept to them. When you—when you guard the oil ministry but you don't guard the nuclear facilities, the message to a lot of people is, "Maybe—well, maybe they're interested in our oil." Now, the problem is that they didn't think these things through properly, and these are the things you have to think through. What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of Fallujahs and other places and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders. You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But you've also got to show that you're prepared to bring the rest of the world in and share the stakes. I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq. And our goal, in my administration, would be to get all of the troops out of there, with the minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the peace. But that's how we're going to win the peace, by rapidly training the Iraqis themselves. Even the administration has admitted they haven't done the training, because they came to Congress a few weeks ago and asked for a complete reprogramming of the money. Now, what greater admission is there, 16 months afterwards, "Oops, we haven't done the job. We've got to start to spend the money now. Will you guys give us permission to shift it over into training?" Mr. Lehrer.  Ninety seconds. President Bush.  There's 100,000 troops trained, police, guard, special units, border patrol. There's going to be 125,000 trained by the end of this year. Yes, we're getting the job done. It's hard work. Everybody knows it's hard work because there's a determined enemy that's trying to defeat us. Now, my opponent says he's going to try to change the dynamics on the ground. Well, Prime Minister Allawi was here. He is the leader of that country. He's a brave, brave man. When he came, after giving a speech to the Congress, my opponent questioned his credibility. You can't change the dynamics on the ground if you've criticized the brave leader of Iraq. One of his campaign people alleged that Prime Minister Allawi was like a puppet. That's no way to treat somebody who's courageous and brave, that is trying to lead his country forward. The way to make sure that we succeed is to send consistent, sound messages to the Iraqi people that when we give our word, we will keep our word; that we stand with you; that we believe you want to be free. And I do. I believe that the 25 million people, the vast majority, long to have elections. I reject this notion—and I'm not suggesting that my opponent says it, but I reject the notion that some say that if you're Muslim you can't be free; you don't desire freedom. I disagree, strongly disagree with that. Mr. Lehrer.  Thirty seconds. Senator Kerry.  I couldn't agree more that the Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free. But I think the President, again, still hasn't shown how he's going to go about it the right way. He has more of the same. Now, Prime Minister Allawi came here, and he said the terrorists are pouring over the border. That's Allawi's assessment. The national intelligence assessment that was given to the President in July said: Best case scenario, more of the same of what we see today; worst case scenario, civil war. I can do better. President Bush.  Yes, let me—— Mr. Lehrer.  Yes, 30 seconds. President Bush.  The reason why Prime Minister Allawi said they're coming across the border is because he recognizes that this is a central part of the war on terror. They're fighting us because they're fighting freedom. They understand that a free Afghanistan or a free Iraq will be a major defeat for them, and those are the stakes. And that's why it is essential we not leave. That's why it's essential we hold the line. That's why it's essential we win, and we will. Under my leadership, we're going to win this war in Iraq. Future U.S. Military Action Mr. Lehrer.  Mr. President, a new question, 2 minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action? President Bush.  I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. I never wanted to commit troops. I never—when I was running— when we had the debate in 2000, I never dreamt I would be doing that. But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us. I think that by speaking clearly and doing what we say and not sending mixed messages, it is less likely we'll ever have to use troops. But a President must always be willing to use troops. It must—as a last resort. The—I was hopeful diplomacy would work in Iraq. It was falling apart. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was hoping that the world would turn a blind eye. And if he had been in power—in other words, we had said, "Let's let the inspectors work," or "Let's hope to talk him out; maybe an 18th resolution would work," he'd have been stronger and tougher, and the world would have been a lot worse off. There's just no doubt in my mind. We would rue the day if Saddam Hussein had been in power. So we use diplomacy every chance we get, believe me. And I—I would hope never to have to use force. But by speaking clearly and sending messages that we mean what we say, we've affected the world in a positive way. Look at Libya. Libya was a threat. Libya is now peacefully dismantling its weapons programs. Libya understood that America and others will enforce doctrine, and the world is better for it. So to answer your question, I would hope we'd never have to. I think by acting firmly and decisively, it will mean it's less likely to—less likely we have to use force. Mr. Lehrer.  Senator Kerry, 90 seconds. Senator Kerry.  Jim, the President just said something extraordinarily revealing and, frankly, very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, "The enemy attacked us." Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Usama bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaida attacked us. And when we had Usama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains, with the American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn't use the best trained troops in the world to go kill the world's number one criminal and terrorist. They outsourced the job to Afghan warlords who only a week earlier had been on the other side fighting against us, neither of whom trusted each other. That's the enemy that attacked us. That's the enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains. That's the enemy that is now in 60 countries with stronger recruits. He also said Saddam Hussein would have been stronger. That is just factually incorrect. Two-thirds of the country was a no-fly zone when we started this war. We would have had sanctions. We would have had the U.N. inspectors. Saddam Hussein would have been continually weakening. If the President had shown the patience to go through another round of resolution, to sit down with those leaders and say, "What do you need? What do you need now? How much more will it take to get you to join us," we would be in a stronger place today. President Bush.  First, listen—— Mr. Lehrer.  Thirty seconds. President Bush.  ——of course I know Usama bin Laden attacked us. I know that. And secondly, to think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose is ludicrous, in my judgment. It just shows a significant difference of opinion. We tried diplomacy. We did our best. He was hoping to turn a blind eye, and, yes, he would have been stronger had we not dealt with him. He had the capability of making weapons, and he would have made weapons. Mr. Lehrer.  Thirty seconds, Senator. Senator Kerry.  Thirty-five to forty countries in the world had a greater capability of making weapons at the moment the President invaded than Saddam Hussein. And while he has been diverted with 9 out of 10 active duty divisions of our Army either going to Iraq, coming back from Iraq, or getting ready to go, North Korea's got nuclear weapons, and the world is more dangerous. Iran is moving towards nuclear weapons, and the world is more dangerous. Darfur has a genocide. The world is more dangerous. I'd have made a better choice. Preemptive Action/International Cooperation Mr. Lehrer.  New question, 2 minutes, Senator Kerry. What is your position on the whole concept of preemptive war? Senator Kerry.  The President always has the right and always has had the right for preemptive strike. That was a great doctrine throughout the cold war, and it was always one of the things we argued about with respect to arms control. No President, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test, where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons. Here we have our own Secretary of State who's had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations. I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy, in the Cuban missile crisis, sent his Secretary of State to Paris to meet with de Gaulle, and in the middle of the discussion to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And de Gaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me." How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way? So what is at test here is the credibility of the United States of America and how we lead the world. Iran and Iraq are now more—Iran and North Korea are now more dangerous. Now, whether preemption is ultimately what has to happen or not, I don't know yet. But I'll tell you this, as President, I'll never take my eye off that ball. I've been fighting for proliferation the entire time—antiproliferation the entire time I've been in the Congress. And we've watched this President actually turn away from some of the treaties that were on the table. You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations. You have to earn that respect. And I think we have a lot of earning back to do. Mr. Lehrer.  Ninety seconds. President Bush.  Let me—I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test." You take preemptive action if you pass a global test? My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure. My opponent talks about me not signing certain treaties. But let me tell you one thing I didn't sign—and I think it shows a difference of our opinion, the difference of opinions—and that is that I wouldn't join the International Criminal Court. This is a body based in The Hague where unaccountable judges and prosecutors could pull our troops, our diplomats up for trial. And I wouldn't join it. And I understand that in certain capitals around the world that that wasn't a popular move. But it's the right move, not to join a foreign court that could—where our people could be prosecuted. My opponent is for joining the International Criminal Court. I just think trying to be popular kind of in the global sense, if it's not in our best interest, makes no sense. I'm interested in working with other nations and do a lot of it. But I'm not going to make decisions that I think are wrong for America. North Korea and Iran Mr. Lehrer.  New question. Mr. President, do you believe that diplomacy and sanctions can resolve the nuclear problems with North Korea and Iran? Taking them in any order you would like. President Bush.  North Korea, first—I do. Let me say I certainly hope so. Before I was sworn in, the policy of this Government was to have bilateral negotiations with North Korea. And we signed an agreement with North Korea that my administration found out that was not being honored by the North Koreans. And so I decided that a better way to approach the issue was to get other nations involved, just—besides us. And in Crawford, Texas, Jiang Zemin and I agreed that the nuclear-weapons-free North—peninsula—Korean Peninsula was in his interest and our interest and the world's interest. And so we began a new dialog with North Korea, one that included not only the United States but now China. And China has got a lot of influence over North Korea, in some ways more than we do. As well we included South Korea, Japan, and Russia. So now there are five voices speaking to Kim Chong-il, not just one. And so if Kim Chong-il decides again to not honor an agreement, he's not only doing injustice to America, he'd be doing injustice to China as well. And I think this will work. It's not going to work if we open up a dialog with Kim Chong-il. That's what he wants. He wants to unravel the six-party talks—or the five—the five-nation coalition that's sending him a clear message. On Iran, I hope we can do the same thing, continue to work with the world to convince the Iranian mullahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions. We've worked very closely with the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, and Great Britain, who have been the folks delivering the message to the mullahs that if you expect to be part of the world of nations, get rid of your nuclear programs. The IAEA is involved. There's a special protocol recently been passed that allows for instant inspections. I hope we can do it, and we've got a good strategy. Mr. Lehrer.  Senator Kerry, 90 seconds. Senator Kerry.  With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort—without the United States, regrettably—to begin to try to move to deter the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better. I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them to see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The President did nothing. With respect to North Korea, the real story, we had inspectors and television cameras in the nuclear reactor in North Korea. Secretary Bill Perry negotiated that under President Clinton. And we knew where the fuel rods were, and we knew the limits on their nuclear power. Colin Powell, our Secretary of State, announced one day that we were going to continue the dialog and work with the North Koreans. The President reversed him publicly, while the President of South Korea was here. And the President of South Korea went back to South Korea bewildered and embarrassed because it went against his policy. And for 2 years, this administration didn't talk at all to North Korea. While they didn't talk at all, the fuel rods came out. The inspectors were kicked out. The television cameras were kicked out. And, today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea. That happened on this President's watch. Now, that, I think, is one of the most serious sort of reversals or mixed messages that you could possibly send. Mr. Lehrer.  I want to make sure—yes, sir—but in this one minute, I want to make sure that we understand—the people—the people watching you understand the differences between the two of you on this. You want to continue the multinational talks, correct? President Bush.  Right. Mr. Lehrer.  And you want—you're wanting to do it—— Senator Kerry.  Both. I want bilateral talks which put all of the issues from the Armistice of 1952, the economic issues, the human rights issues, the artillery disposal issues, the DMZ issues, and the nuclear issues on the table. Mr. Lehrer.  And you're opposed to that, right? President Bush.  The minute we have bilateral talks, the six-party talks will unwind. It's exactly what Kim Chong-il wants. And by the way, the breach on the agreement was not to plutonium. The breach on the agreement is highly enriched uranium. That's what we caught him doing. That's where he was breaking the agreement. Secondly, you said—my opponent said that he'd work to put sanctions on Iran. We've already sanctioned Iran. We can't sanction them anymore. There are sanctions in place on Iran. And finally, we were a party to the convincing—to working with Germany, France, and Great Britain to send their Foreign Ministers into Iran. Iran/Sudan Mr. Lehrer.  New question, 2 minutes, Senator Kerry. You mentioned Darfur, the Darfur region of Sudan. Fifty thousand people have already died in that area, more than a million are homeless, and it's been labeled an act of ongoing genocide. Yet, neither one of you or anyone else connected with your campaigns or your administration that I can find has discussed the possibility of sending in troops. Why not? Senator Kerry.  Well, I'll tell you exactly why not, but I first want to say something about those sanctions on Iran. Only the United States put the sanctions on, alone, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. In order for the sanctions to be effective we should have been working with the British, French, and Germans and other countries. And that's the difference between the President and me. And there again, he sort of slid by the question. Now, with respect to Darfur, yes, it is a genocide. And months ago, many of us were pressing for action. I think the reason that we're not saying send American troops in at this point is several-fold. Number one, we can do this through the African Union, providing we give them the logistical support. Right now, all the President is providing is humanitarian support. We need to do more than that. They've got to have the logistical capacity to go in and stop the killing, and that's going to require more than is on the table today. I also believe that it is—one of the reasons we can't do it is we're overextended. Ask the people in the Armed Forces today. We've got Guards and Reserves who are doing double duties. We've got a backdoor draft taking place in America today, people with stop-loss programs where they're told, "You can't get out of the military," 9 out of our 10 active duty divisions committed to Iraq one way or the other, either going, coming, or preparing. So this is the way the President has overextended the United States. That's why, in my plan, I add two active duty divisions to the United States Army, not for Iraq but for our general demands across the globe. I also intend to double the number of Special Forces so that we can do the job we need to do with respect to fighting the terrorists around the world. And if we do that, then we have the ability to be able to respond more rapidly. But I'll tell you this, as President, if it took American forces, to some degree, to coalesce the African Union, I'd be prepared to do it, because we could never allow another Rwanda. It's a moral responsibility for us in the world. Mr. Lehrer.  Ninety seconds. President Bush.  Back to Iran, just for a second. It was not my administration that put the sanctions on Iran. That happened long before I arrived in Washington, DC. In terms of Darfur, I agree, it's genocide, and Colin Powell so stated. We have committed $200 million worth of aid. We're the leading donor in the world to help the suffering people there. We will commit more, over time, to help. We were very much involved at the U.N. on the sanction policy of the Bashir Government in the Sudan. Prior to Darfur, Ambassador Jack Danforth had been negotiating a north-south agreement that we would hope would have brought peace to the Sudan. I agree with my opponent that we shouldn't be committing troops, that we ought to be working with the African Union to do so—precisely what we did in Liberia. We helped stabilize the situation with some troops, and when the African Union came, we moved them out. My hope is that the African Union moves rapidly to help save lives. Fortunately, the rainy season will be ending shortly, which will make it easier to get aid there and help the long-suffering people there. Character of the Candidates Mr. Lehrer.  New question, President Bush. There are clearly, as we have heard, major policy differences between the two of you. Are there also underlying character issues that you believe—that you believe— are serious enough to deny Senator Kerry the job as Commander in Chief of the United States? President Bush.  Whew, that's a loaded question. [ Laughter ] First of all, I admire Senator Kerry's service to our country. I admire the fact that he is a great dad. I appreciate the fact that his daughters have been so kind to my daughters in what has been a pretty hard experience for, I guess, young girls seeing their dads out there campaigning. I admire the fact that he's served for 20 years in the Senate, although I'm not so sure I admire the record. I won't hold it against him that he went to Yale. Nothing wrong with that. I—my concerns about the Senator is that in the course of this campaign I've been listening very carefully to what he says, and he changed his positions on the war in Iraq, changed his positions on something as fundamental as what you believe in your core, in your heart of hearts, is right in Iraq. You cannot lead if you send mixed messages. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our troops. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to our allies. Mixed messages send the wrong signals to the Iraqi citizens. And that's my biggest concern about my opponent. I admire his service. But I just know how this world works and that in the councils of government, there must be certainty from the U.S. President. Of course, we change tactics when need to, but we never change our beliefs, the strategic beliefs that are necessary to protect this country in the world. Mr. Lehrer.  Ninety-second response, Senator. Senator Kerry.  Well, first of all, I appreciate enormously the personal comments the President just made, and I share them with him. I think only if you've—if you're doing this, and he's done it more than I have in terms of the Presidency, can you begin to get a sense of what it means to your families. And it's tough. And so I acknowledge his daughters. I've watched them. I've chuckled a few times at some of their comments. [ Laughter ] And—— President Bush.  I'm trying to put a leash on them. [ Laughter ] Senator Kerry.  Well, I know, I've learned not to do that. [ Laughter ] And I have great respect and admiration for his wife. I think she's a terrific person—— President Bush.  Thank you. Senator Kerry.  ——and a great First Lady. But we do have differences. I'm not going to talk about a difference of character. I don't think that's my job or my business. But let me talk about something that the President just sort of finished up with—maybe someone would call it a character trait; maybe somebody wouldn't—but this issue of certainty. It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong. It's another to be certain and be right, or be certain and be moving in the right direction, or be certain about a principle and then learn new facts and take those new facts and put them to use in order to change and get your policy right. What I worry about with the President is that he's not acknowledging what's on the ground. He's not acknowledging the realities of North Korea. He's not acknowledging the truth of the science of stem cell research or of global warming and other issues. And certainty sometimes can get you in trouble. Mr. Lehrer.  Thirty seconds. President Bush.  Well, I think—listen, I fully agree that one should shift tactics, and we will in Iraq. Our commanders have got all the flexibility to do what is necessary to succeed. But what I won't do is change my core values because of politics or because of pressure. And it is—one of the things I've learned in the White House is that there's enormous pressure on the President, and you cannot wilt under that pressure. Otherwise the world won't be better off. Mr. Lehrer.  Thirty seconds. Senator Kerry.  I have no intention of wilting. I've never wilted in my life, and I've never wavered in my life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq and my position has been consistent. Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The President needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something because he never did it without the threat of force, but we didn't need to rush to war without a plan to win the peace. Nuclear Proliferation Mr. Lehrer.  New question, 2 minutes, Senator Kerry. If you are elected President, what will you take to that office thinking is the single most serious threat to the national security of the United States? Senator Kerry.  Nuclear proliferation— nuclear proliferation. There are some 600-plus tons of unsecured material still in the former Soviet Union, in Russia. At the rate that the President is currently securing that, it will take 13 years to get it. I did a lot of work on this. I wrote a book about it several years ago—maybe 6 or 7 years ago, called "The New War," which saw the difficulties of this international criminal network. And back then, we intercepted a suitcase in a Middle Eastern country with nuclear materials in it, and the black market sale price was about $250 million. Now, there are terrorists trying to get their hands on that stuff today. And this President, I regret to say, has secured less nuclear material in the last 2 years since 9/11 than we did in the 2 years preceding 9/11. We have to do this job. And to do the job, you can't cut the money for it. The President actually cut the money for it. You have to put the money into it and the funding and the leadership. And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea. Right now the President is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense. You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using. Not this President. I'm going to shut that program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation. And we're going to get the job of containing all of that nuclear material in Russia done in 4 years. And we're going to build the strongest international network to prevent nuclear proliferation. This is the scale of what President Kennedy set out to do with the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. It's our generation's equivalent, and I intend to get it done. Mr. Lehrer.  Ninety seconds, Mr. President. President Bush.  Actually, we've increased funding for dealing with nuclear proliferation about 35 percent since I've been the President. Secondly, we've set up what's called the—well, first of all, I agree with my opponent that the biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist network. And that's why we've put proliferation as the—one of the centerpieces of a multipronged strategy to make the country safer. My administration started what is called the Proliferation Security Initiative, over 60 nations involved with disrupting the trans-shipment of information and/or weapons of mass destruction materials. And we're— been effective. We busted the A.Q. Khan network. This was a proliferator out of Pakistan that was selling secrets to places like North Korea and Libya. We convinced Libya to disarm. It was an essential part of dealing with weapons of mass destruction and proliferation. I'll tell you another way to help protect America in the long—in the long run is continue with missile defenses, and we've got a robust research and development program that has been ongoing during my administration. We'll be implementing a missile defense system relatively quickly. And that is another way to help deal with the threats that we face in the 21st century. My opponent is opposed to the missile defenses. Mr. Lehrer.  Just for this one-minute discussion here, is it just—for whatever seconds it takes—so it's correct to say that if somebody is listening to this, that both of you agree—if you're reelected, Mr. President, and if you are elected—the single most serious threat you believe—both of you believe is nuclear proliferation? President Bush.  In the hands of a terrorist enemy. Senator Kerry.  Weapons of mass destruction, nuclear proliferation. But again, the test of the difference between us—the President has had 4 years to try to do something about it, and North Korea has got more weapons. Iran is moving towards weapons. And at his pace, it will take 13 years to secure those weapons in Russia. I'm going to do it in 4 years, and I'm going to immediately set out to have bilateral talks with North Korea. Mr. Lehrer.  Your response to that. President Bush.  Again, I can't tell you how big a mistake I think that is, to have bilateral talks with North Korea. It's precisely what Kim Chong-il wants. It will cause the six-party talks to evaporate. It means that China no longer is involved in convincing, along with us, for Kim Chong-il to get rid of his weapons. It's a big mistake to do that. We must have China's leverage on Kim Chong-il, besides ourselves. And if you enter bilateral talks, they'll be happy to walk away from the table. I don't think that will work. President Vladimir Putin of Russia Mr. Lehrer.  All right, Mr. President, this is—this is the last question, and 2 minutes. It's a new—new subject, new question. And it has to do with President Putin and Russia. Did you misjudge him, or are you— do you feel that what he is doing in the name of antiterrorism by changing some democratic processes is okay? President Bush.  No, I don't think it's okay and said so publicly. I think that there needs to be checks and balances in a democracy and made that very clear—that by consolidating power in a central government, he's sending a signal to the Western world and the United States that—that perhaps he doesn't believe in checks and balances. And I've told him that. He's also a strong ally in the war on terror. He is—listen, they went through a horrible situation in Beslan where these terrorists gunned down young school kids. But it's the nature of the enemy, by the way. That's why we need to be firm and resolved in bringing them to justice. It's precisely what Vladimir Putin understands as well. I've got a good relation with Vladimir, and it's important that we do have a good relation because that enables me to better comment to him and to—better to discuss with him some of the decisions he makes. I found that in this world that it's important to establish good personal relationships with people so that when you have disagreements, you're able to disagree in a way that is effective. And so I've told him my opinion. I look forward to discussing it more with him as time goes on. Russia is a country in transition. Vladimir is going to have to make some hard choices, and I think it's very important for the American President as well as other Western leaders to remind him of the great benefits of democracy, that democracy will best help the people realize their hopes and aspirations and dreams. And I will continue working with him over the next 4 years. Mr. Lehrer.  Ninety seconds, Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry.  Well, let me just say quickly that I've had an extraordinary experience of watching up close and personal that transition in Russia, because I was there right after the transformation, and I was probably one of the first Senators, along with Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire, a former Senator, to go down into the KGB underneath Treblinka Square and see reams of files with names in them. And it sort of brought home the transition to democracy that Russia was trying to make. I regret what's happened in these past months, and I think it goes beyond just the response to terror. Mr. Putin now controls all the television stations. His political opposition is being put in jail. And I think it's very important for the United States, obviously, to have a working relationship that is good. This is a very important country to us, and we want a partnership. But we always have to stand up for democracy. As George Will said the other day, "Freedom on the march, not in Russia right now." Now, I'd like to come back for a quick moment, if I can, to that issue about China and the talks, because that's one of the most critical issues here, North Korea. Just because the President says it can't be done, that you'd lose China, doesn't mean it can't be done. I mean, this is the President who said there were weapons of mass destruction, said "mission accomplished," said we could fight the war on the cheap, none of which were true. We can have bilateral talks with Kim Chong-il, and we can get those weapons at the same time as we get China, because China has an interest in the outcome too. Mr. Lehrer.  Thirty seconds, Mr. President. President Bush.  You know my opinion on North Korea. I can't say it any more plainly. Mr. Lehrer.  Right. Well, but what—he used the word "truth" again. President Bush.  Pardon me? Mr. Lehrer.  Talking about the truth of the matter. He used the word "truth" again. Did that raise any hackles that you— with you? President Bush.  Oh, I'm a pretty calm guy. [ Laughter ] I mean, I don't take it personally. Mr. Lehrer.  All right. Yes. President Bush.  But you know, look, we looked at the same intelligence. We came to the same conclusion, that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat. And I don't hold it against him that he said "grave threat." I'm not going to go around the country saying he didn't tell the truth, when he looked at the same intelligence I did. Senator Kerry.  It was a threat. That's not the issue. The issue is what you do about it. The President said he was going to build a true coalition, exhaust the remedies of the U.N., and go to war as a last resort. Those words really have to mean something. And unfortunately, he didn't go to war as a last resort. Now we have this incredible mess in Iraq, $200 billion—it's— it's not what the American people thought they were getting when they voted. Closing Statements Mr. Lehrer.  All right, that brings us to closing statements. And again, as determined by a coin toss, Senator Kerry, you go first, and you have 2 minutes. Senator Kerry.  Thank you, Jim, very much. Thank you very much to the university again. Thank you, Mr. President. My fellow Americans, as I said at the very beginning of this debate, both President Bush and I love this country very much. There is no doubt, I think, about that. But we have a different set of convictions about how we make our country stronger here at home and respected again in the world. I know that for many of you sitting at home, parents of kids in Iraq, you want to know, who is the person who could be a Commander in Chief who can get your kids home and get the job done and win the peace? And for all the rest of the parents in America who are wondering about their kids going to a school or anywhere else in the world, what kind of world they're going to grow up in, let me look you in the eye and say to you: I've defended this country as a young man in war, and I will defend it as President of the United States. But I have a difference with this President. I believe we're strongest when we reach out and lead the world and build strong alliances. I have a plan for Iraq. I believe we can be successful. I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning. And we need a fresh start, a new credibility, a President who can bring allies to our side. I also have a plan to win the war on terror, funding homeland security, strengthening our military, cutting off finances, reaching out to the world—again, building strong alliances. I believe America's best days are ahead of us because I believe that the future belongs to freedom, not to fear. That's the country that I'm going to fight for, and I ask you to give me the opportunity to make you proud. I ask you to give me the opportunity to lead this great Nation so that we can be stronger here at home, respected again in the world, and have responsible leadership that we deserve. Thank you, and God bless America. Mr. Lehrer.  Mr. President, 2 minutes. President Bush.  Thank you very much, tonight, Jim. Thank you, Senator. If America shows uncertainty or weakness in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. That's not going to happen so long as I'm your President. In the next 4 years, we will continue to strengthen our homeland defenses. We will strengthen our intelligence gathering services. We will reform our military. The military will be an all-volunteer army. We will continue to stay on the offense. We will fight the terrorists around the world so we do not have to face them here at home. We'll continue to build our alliances. I'll never turn over America's national security needs to leaders of other countries as we continue to build those alliances. And we'll continue to spread freedom. I believe in the transformational power of liberty. I believe that a free Iraq is in this Nation's interests. I believe a free Afghanistan is in this Nation's interests, and I believe both a free Afghanistan and a free Iraq will serve as a powerful example for millions who plead in silence for liberty in the broader Middle East. We've done a lot of hard work together over the last 3 1/2 years. We've been challenged, and we've risen to those challenges. We've climbed the mighty mountain. I see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace. By being steadfast and resolute and strong, by keeping our word, by supporting our troops, we can achieve the peace we all want. I appreciate your listening tonight. I ask for your vote. And may God continue to bless our great land. Mr. Lehrer.  And that ends tonight's debate. A reminder, the second Presidential debate will be a week from tomorrow, October 8th, from Washington University in St. Louis. Charles Gibson of ABC News will moderate a townhall-type event. Then, on October 13th, from Arizona State University in Tempe, Bob Schieffer of CBS News will moderate an exchange on domestic policy that will be similar in format to tonight's. Also, this coming Tuesday, at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, the Vice Presidential candidates, Vice President Cheney and Senator Edwards, will debate with my PBS colleague, Gwen Ifill, moderating. For now, thank you, Senator Kerry, President Bush. From Coral Gables, Florida, I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night. Source: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/presidential-debate-coral-gables-florida

October 17, 2000   MODERATOR: Good evening from the Field House at Washington University in St. Louis. I'm Jim Lehrer of the News Hour on PBS. And I welcome you to this third and final Campaign 2000 debate between the Democratic candidate for president, Vice President Al Gore, and the Republican candidate, Governor George W. Bush of Texas. Let's welcome the candidates now. Before proceeding tonight we would like to observe a moment of silence in memory of Governor Mel Carnahan of Missouri, who along with his son and his former chief of staff, died in a private plane crash last night near St. Louis. A reminder, as we continue now, that these debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The formats and the rules were worked out by the commission and the two campaigns. Tonight's questions will be asked by St. Louis area voters who were identified as being uncommitted by the Gallup organization. Earlier today each of them wrote a question on a small card like this. Those cards were collected and then given to me this afternoon. My job, under the rules of the evening, was to decide the order the questions will be asked and to call on the questioners accordingly. I also have the option of asking follow-ups which -- in order to get to more of the panel's questions. For the record, I plan to do sparingly and mostly for clarifications. The audience participants are bound by the following rule. They shall not ask follow-up questions or otherwise participate in the extended discussion. And the questioner's microphone will be turned off after he or she completes asking the question. Those are the rules. As in Winston-Salem last week, no single answer or response from a candidate can exceed two minutes. There is an audience here in the hall and they have promised to remain absolutely quiet, as did their predecessors this year in Boston, Danville, and Winston-Salem. Before we begin, a correction from last week's debate. I was wrong when I said Vice President Gore's campaign commercials had called Governor Bush a bumbler. That specific charge was made in a press statement by Gore campaign spokesman Mark Fabiani, not in a TV Guide. GORE: I'm glad you clarified that. MODERATOR: Now, let's go to the first question. Of over the 130 questions we received from this panel, we will begin with one of the 19 on health issues, and it goes to you, Mr. Vice President, and it will be asked by James Hankin. Mr. Hankin? MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: How do you feel about HMOs and insurance companies making the critical decisions that affect people's lives instead of the medical professionals, and why are the HMOs and insurance companies not held accountable for their decisions? GORE: Mr. Hankins, I don't feel good about it, and I think we ought to have a patient's bill of rights to take the medical decisions away from the HMOs and give them back to the doctors and nurses. I want to come back and tell you why, but if you will forgive me, I would like to say something right now at the beginning of this debate following on the moment of silence for Mel Carnahan and Randy Carnahan and Chris Sifford. Tipper and I were good friends with Mel and Randy, and I know that all of us here want to extend our sympathy and condolences to Jean and the family and to the Sifford family. And I would just like to say that this debate in a way is a living tribute to Mel Carnahan because he loved the vigorous discussion of ideas in our democracy. He was a fantastic governor of Missouri. This state became one of the top five in the nation for health care coverage for children under his leadership. One of the best in advancing all kinds of benefits for children to grow up healthy and strong. And of course, this debate also takes place at a time when the tragedy of the USS Cole is on our minds and hearts and insofar as the memorial services tomorrow, I would like to also extend sympathy to the families of those who have died and those who are still missing, and the injured. Now, Mr. Hankins, I think that the situation that you describe has gotten completely out of hand. Doctors are giving prescriptions, they're recommending treatments, and then their recommendations are being overruled by HMOs and insurance companies. That is unacceptable. I support a strong national patient's bill of rights. It is actually a disagreement between us, a national law that is pending on this, the Dingle-Norwood bill, a bipartisan bill, is one that I support and that the governor does not. MODERATOR: Two minutes response, Governor Bush. BUSH: I, too, want to extend my prayers and blessings, God's blessings on the families whose lives were overturned yes -- tod -- last night. It's a tragic moment. Actually, Mr. Vice President, it's not true. I do support a national patient's bill of rights. As a matter of fact, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to do just that in the State of Texas to get a patient's bill of rights through. It requires a different kind of leadership style to do it, though. You see, in order to get something done on behalf of the people, you have to put partisanship aside, and that's what we did in my state. We have one of the most advanced patient's bill of rights. It says, for example, that a woman doesn't have to go through a gate keeper to go to her gynecologist. It says that you can't gag a doctor, doctor can advise you. The HMO, the insurance company, can't gag that doctor from giving you full advice. And this particular bill, it allows patients to choose a doctor, their own doctor if they want to. But we did something else that was interesting. We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage. Now there's what's called an Independent Review Organization that you have to go through first. It says you have a complaint with your insurance company, you can take your complaint to an objective body. If the objective body rules on your behalf, the insurance company must follow those rules. However, if the insurance company doesn't follow the findings of the IRO, then that becomes a cause of action in a court of law. It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people, and I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patient's bill of rights, Mr. Vice President, and I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas. I think -- MODERATOR: Governor, time is up, sir. GORE: Jim, we have a direct disagreement on this. MODERATOR: Just a minute, Mr. Vice President. I want to -- the way the rules go here now, two minutes, two minutes, and then I'll decide whether we go on. Okay. So what I want to make sure is we understand here is before we go on to another question in the health area, would you agree that you two agree on a national patient's bill of rights? GORE: Absolutely not. I referred to the Dingle-Norwood bill. It is the bipartisan bill that is now pending in the Congress. The HMOs and the insurance companies support the other bill that's pending, the one that the Republican majority has put forward. They like it because it doesn't accomplish what I think really needs to be accomplished to give the decisions back to the doctors and nurses and give you a right of appeal to somebody other than the HMO or insurance company, let you go to the nearest emergency room without having to call an HMO before you call 911, to let you see a specialist if you need to, and it has strong bipartisan support. It is being blocked by the Republican leadership in the Congress. MODERATOR: Sir. GORE: And I specifically would like to know whether Governor Bush will support the Dingle-Norwood bill, which is the main one pending. MODERATOR: Governor Bush, you may answer that if you'd like. But also I'd like to know how you see the differences between the two of you, and we need to move on. BUSH: Well, the difference is is that I can get it done. That I can get something positive done on behalf of the people. That's what the question in this campaign is about. It's not only what's your philosophy and what's your position on issues, but can you get things done? And I believe I can. GORE: What about the Dingle-Norwood bill? MODERATOR: All right. We're going to go now to another -- all right. Yes. BUSH: I'm not quite through. Let me finish. I talked about the principles and the issues that I think are important in a patient's bill of rights. It's kind of Washington, D.C. focus. Well, it's in this committee or it's got this sponsor. If I'm the president, we're going to have emergency room care, we're going have gag orders, we're going to have direct access to OB/GYN. People will be able to take their HMO insurance company to court. That's what I've done in Texas and that's the kind of leadership style I'll bring to Washington. MODERATOR: All right. Another -- the next question also on health issue is from -- it will be asked by Marie Payne Kloep, and it goes to Governor Bush. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Are either of you concerned with -- are either of you concerned with finding some feasible way to lower the price of pharmaceutical drugs such as education on minimizing intake, revamp of the FDA process or streamlining the drug companies' procedures instead of just finding more money to pay for them? BUSH: Well, that's a great question. I think one of the problems we have, particularly for seniors, is there is no prescription drug coverage in Medicare. And therefore, when they have to try to purchase drugs they do so on their own, there's no kind of collective bargaining, no power of purchasing among seniors. So I think step one to make sure prescription drugs is more affordable for seniors, and those are the folks who really rely upon prescription drugs a lot these days, is to reform the Medicare system, is to have precipitation drugs as an integral part of Medicare once and for all. The problem we have today is like the patient's bill of rights, particularly with health care, there's a lot of bickering in Washington, D.C. It's kind of like a political issue as opposed to a people issue. So what I want to do is I want to call upon Republicans and Democrats to forget all the arguing and finger pointing, and come together and take care of our seniors' prescription drug program, that says we'll pay for the poor seniors, we'll help all seniors with prescription drugs. In the meantime, I think it's important to have what's called Immediate Helping Hand, which is direct money to states so that seniors, poor seniors, don't have to choose between food and medicine. That's part of an overall overhaul. The purchasing powers. And I'm against price controls. I think price controls would hurt our ability to continue important research and development. Drug therapies are replacing a lot of medicines as we used to know it. One of the most important things is to continue the research and development component. And so I'm against price controls. Expediting drugs through the FDA makes sense, of course. Allowing the new bill that was passed in the Congress made sense to allow for, you know, drugs that were sold overseas to come back and other countries to come back into the United States. That makes sense. But the best thing to do is to reform Medicare. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, two minutes. GORE: All right, here we go again. Now look, if you want someone who will spend a lot of words describing a whole convoluted process and then end up supporting legislation that is supported by the big drug companies, this is your man. If you want someone who will fight for you and who will fight for the middle-class families and working men and women, who are sick and tired of having their parents and grandparents pay higher prices for prescription drugs than anybody else, then I want to fight them. And you asked a great question because it's not only seniors. Listen, for 24 years I have never been afraid to take on the big drug companies. They do some great things. They discover great new cures and that's great. We want them to continue that. But they are now spending more money on advertising and promotion. You see all these ads? Than they are on research and development. And they are trying artificially extend the monopoly patent protection so they can keep charging these very high prices. I want to streamline the approval of the competing generic drugs and the new kinds of treatments that can compete with them so we bring the price down for everybody. Now, briefly, let me tell you how my prescription drug plan works. The governor talked about Medicare. I propose a real prescription drug benefit under Medicare for all seniors, all seniors, and here's how it works. You pick your own doctor, and nobody can take that away from you. The doctor chooses the prescription that you need and nobody can overrule your doctor. You go to your own pharmacy and then Medicare pays half the price. If you're poor, they pay all of it. If you have extraordinarily high cost, then they pay all over $4,000 out-of-pocket. And I'll bring new competition to bring the price down. And if you pass the big drug companies' bill, nothing will happen. MODERATOR: All right. Another health question, it comes from Vickie French, and it's for you, Vice President Gore. Vickie French, where are you? Oh, there she is. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: You spend billions of dollars every year on taxes, or pay billions of dollars in taxes. Would you be open to the idea of a national health care plan for everybody? And if not, why? If so, is this something you would try to implement if you are elected into office and what would you do to implement this plan? GORE: I think that we should move step-by-step toward universal health coverage, but I am not in favor of government doing it all. We've spent 65 years now on the development of a hybrid system, partly private, partly public, and 85% of our people have health insurance, 15% don't. That adds up to 44 million people. That is a national outrage. We have got to get health coverage for those who do not have it and we've got to improve the quality for those who do with a patient's bill of rights that's real and that works, the Dingle-Norwood bill, and we have got to fill in the gaps in coverage by finally bringing parity for the treatment of mental illness, because that's been left out. We have got to deal with long-term care. Now, here are the steps that I would take, first of all. I will make a commitment to bring health care coverage of high quality that is affordable to every single child in America within four years. And then we'll fill other gaps by covering the parents of those children when the family is poor or up to two and a half times the poverty rate. I want to give a tax credit for the purchase of individual health insurance plans. I want to give small business employers a tax credit, 25%, to encourage the providing of health insurance for the employees in small businesses. I want to give seniors who are, well, the near elderly, I don't like that term because I am just about in that category, but those 55 to 65 ought to be able to buy into Medicare for premiums that are reasonable and fair and significantly below what they have to get now. Now, we have a big difference on this. And you need to know the record here. Under Governor Bush, Texas has sunk to be 50th out of 50 in health care -- in health insurance for their citizens. Last week he said that they were spending 3.7 billion dollars, or 4.7 billion dollars on this. MODERATOR: Mr. Vice president. GORE: Okay. MODERATOR: Time is up. Governor Bush, two minutes. BUSH: I'm absolutely opposed to a national health care plan. I don't want the federal government making decisions for consumers or for providers. I remember what the administration tried to do in 1993. They tried to have a national health care plan. And fortunately, it failed. I trust people, I don't trust the federal government. It's going to be one of the themes you hear tonight. I don't want the federal government making decisions on behalf of everybody. There is an issue with the uninsured, there sure is. And we have uninsured people in my state. Ours is a big state, a fast-growing state. We share a common border with another nation. But we're providing health care for our people. One thing about insurance, that's a Washington term. The question is, are people getting health care, and we have a strong safety net, and there needs to be a safety net in America. There needs to be more community health clinics where the poor can go get health care. We need a program for the uninsured. They've been talking about it in Washington, D.C. The number of uninsured has now gone up for the past seven years. We need a $2,000 credit, rebate for people, working people that don't have insurance, they can get in the marketplace and start purchasing insurance. We need to have -- allow small businesses to write insurance across jurisdictional lines so small business can afford health care, small restaurants can afford health care. So health care needs to be affordable and available. We have to trust people to make decisions with their lives. In the Medicare reform I talk about it says if you are a senior, you can stay in Medicare if you like it, and that's fine, but we're going to give you other choices to choose if you want to do so, just like they do the federal employees. The people that work in Washington, D.C. for the U.S. Congress or the United States senate. Get a variety of choices to make in their lives. And that's what we ought to do for all people in America. MODERATOR: Yes, sir, sorry. GORE: Follow-up? MODERATOR: Not right now. Education. These folks submitted 18 questions on education, and the first one is that will be asked on education will go to you, Governor, and asked by Angie Pettig. Angie Pettig, where are you? There she is, Governor, right there. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: I've heard a lot about education and the need to hold teachers and schools accountable, and I certainly agree with that. But as an individual with an educational background, and also a parent, I have seen a lot of instances where the parents are unresponsive to the teachers or flat out uninvolved in their child's education. How do you intend to not only hold the teachers and schools accountable but also hold parents accountable? BUSH: Well, you know, it's hard to make people love one another. I wish I knew the law because I would darn sure sign it. I wish I knew the law that said all of us would be good parents. One of the things the next president must do is to remind people that if we are going to have a responsible period in America, that each of us must love our children with all our heart and all our soul. I happened to believe strong accountability encourages parental involvement, though. I think when you measure and post results on the Internet or in the town newspapers, most parents say wait a minute, my child's school isn't doing what I want it to do and, therefore, become involved in education. I recognize there are some who just don't seem to care. But there are a lot of parents who feel like everything is going well in their child's school, and all of a sudden they wake up and realize that wait a minute, standards aren't being met. That's why I'm so strong for accountability. I believe we ought to measure a lot, three, four, five, six, seven, eighth grade. We do so in my state of Texas. One of the good things we've gone in Texas is we have strong accountability because you can't cure unless you know. You can't solve a problem unless you diagnose it. I strongly believe that one of the best things to encourage parental involvement also is to know that the classrooms will be safe and secure. That's why I support a teacher liability act at the federal level, that says if a teacher or principal upholds reasonable standards of classroom discipline they can't be sued. They can't be sued. I think parents will be more involved with education when they know their children's classrooms are safe and secure as well. I also believe that we need to say to people that if you cannot meet standards, there has to be a consequence. Instead of just comes the soft bigotry of low expectations, that there has to be a consequence. We can't continue to shuffle children through school. And one of the consequences to allow parents to have different choices. MODERATOR: Governor. Vice president Gore. GORE: We have huge difference between us on this question. I'd like to start by telling you what my vision is. I see a day in the United States of America where all of our public schools are considered excellent, world class. Where there are no failing schools, where the classrooms are small enough in size, number of students, so that the teacher can spend enough one-on-one time with each student. Now that means recruiting new teachers for the public schools. It means in my plan hiring bonuses to get 100,000 new teachers in the public schools within the next four years. It means also helping local school districts that sometimes find the parents of school age children outvoted on bond issues, to give them some help with interest-free bonding authority so that we can build new schools and modernize the classrooms. We need to give teachers the training and professional development that they need, including a paid time off to go visit the classroom of a master teacher to pick up some new skills. I want to give every middle-class family a $10,000 a year tax deduction for college tuition so that middle-class families will always be able to send their kids on to college. I want to work for universal free school because we know from all the studies that the youngsters learn, kids learn more in the first few years of life than any where else. Now, I said there was a contrast. Governor Bush is for vouchers, and in his plan he proposes to drain more money, more taxpayer money out of the public schools for private school vouchers than all of the money that he proposes in his entire budget for public schools themselves. And only one in 20 students would be eligible for these vouchers, and they wouldn't even pay the full tuition to private school. I think that's a mistake. I don't think we should give up on the private schools and leave kids trapped in failing schools. I think we -- I think we should make it the number one priority to make our schools the best in the world, all of them. MODERATOR: Governor, what is your position on that? BUSH: Yeah, I appreciate that. I think any time we end with one of these attacks, it's appropriate to respond. Here's what I think. First of all, vouchers are up to states. If you want to do a voucher program in Missouri, fine. I strongly believe in local control of schools. I'm a governor of state and I don't like it when the federal government tells us what to do. I believe in local control of schools. But here's what I said. I've said to the extent we send federal money on disadvantaged children, we want the schools to show us whether or not the children are learning. What's unreasonable about that? We expect there to be standards met and we expect there to be measurement. And if we find success we'll praise it. But when we find children trapped in schools that will not change and will not teach, instead of saying oh, this is okay in America just to shuffle poor kids through schools, there has to be a consequence. And the consequence is that federal portion or federal money will go to the parent, so the parent can go to a tutoring program or another public school or another private school. You see, there has to be a consequence. We've got a society that says hey, the status quo is fine, just move them through. And guess who suffers. MODERATOR: What's the harm on that, what's the other side on that? GORE: Well, the program that he's proposing is not the one that he just. Described under your plan, Governor Bush, states would be required to pay vouchers to students to match the vouchers so that the federal government would put up. Now, you're -- and the way it would happen is that under his plan, if a school was designated as failing, the kids would be trapped there for another three years and then some of them would get federal vouchers and the state would be forced to match those, that money. Under my plan, if a school is failing, we work with the states to give them the authority and the resources to close down that school and reopen it right away with a new principal, a new faculty, a turn-around team of specialists who know what they're doing. It's based on the plan of Governor Jim Hunt in North Carolina, and it works great. MODERATOR: So no vouchers under -- in a Gore administration? GORE: If I thought that there was no alternative, then I might feel differently. But I have an obligation to fight to make sure there are no failing schools. We have to turn around -- most schools are excellent, but we have to make sure that all of them are. MODERATOR: Andrew Kosberg has a related question on education that's right on this subject. Mr. Kosberg, where are you? And it's for Vice President Gore. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Mr. Vice President, in a school district in which I work and in countless others across the nation, we face crumbling school buildings, increased school violence, student apathy, overcrowding, lack of funding, lawsuits, the list goes on. I could mention low teacher pay but I won't. What can you tell me and my fellow American teachers today about your plans for our immediate future? GORE: What grade do you teach? MODERATOR: That's a violation of your rule, Vice President Gore. GORE: High school. I mentioned before that the local communities are having a harder time passing bond issues. Traditionally, if you've been involved in a campaign like that, you know that the parents with kids in school are the ones that turn out and vote. It's ironic that there are now -- there is now a smaller percentage of the voters made up of parents with children than ever in American history because of the aging of our population, but at the same time we've got the largest generation of students in public schools ever. More than 90% of America's children go to public schools. And it's the largest number ever this year and they'll break the record next year and every year for ten years running. We've got to do something about this. And local -- it's not enough to leave it up to the local school districts. They're not able to do it and our future depends upon it. Look, we're in an information age. Our economic future depends upon whether or not our children are going to get the kind of education that lets them go on to college. And again, I want to make it possible for all middle-class families to send their kids to college and more Pell grants for those who are in the lower income groups also, and then I want to make sure that we have job training on top of that and lifelong learning, but it all starts with the public school teachers. My proposal gives $10,000 hiring bonuses for those teachers who are -- who get certified to teach in the areas where they're most needed. Now, accountability, we basically agree on accountability. My plan requires testing of all students. It also requires something that Governor Bush's plan doesn't. It requires testing of all new teachers, including in the subjects that they teach. We have to start treating teachers like the professionals that they are, and give them the respect and the kind of quality of life that will draw more people into teaching because we need a lot more teachers. MODERATOR: Governor Bush, two minutes. BUSH: When you total up all the federal spending he wants to do, it's the largest increase in federal spending in years. And there's just not going to be enough money. I have been a governor of a big state, I have made education my number one priority. That's what governors ought to do. They ought to say this is the most important thing we do as a state. The federal government puts about 6% of the money up. They put about, you know, 60% of the strings where you have to fill out the paperwork. I don't know if you have to be a paperwork filler-outer, but most of it's because of the federal government. What I want to do is to send flexibility and authority to the local folks so you can choose what to do with the money. One size does not fit all. I worry about federalizing education if I were you. I believe strongly that the federal government can help, need the funds, Headstart. We need to have accountability. The Vice President's plan does not have annual accountability, third grade, fourth grade, fifth grade. We need to demand on results. I believe strongly in a teacher protection act like I mentioned. I hear from teachers all the time about the lawsuits and the threats, respect in the classroom. Part of it's because you can't -- you can't control the classroom. You can't have a consequence for somebody without fear of getting sued under federal law. So I'm going to ask the Congress to pass a teacher protection act. So I believe in flexibility, I believe in a national reading initiative for local districts to access with K through 2 diagnostic testing, curriculum that works, phonics works, by the way, it needs to be a part of our curriculum. There needs to be flexibility for teacher training and teacher hiring with federal money. The federal government can be a part, but don't fall prey to all this stuff about money here and money there because education is really funded at the local level. 94% comes from the local level. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, is the governor right when he says that you're proposing the largest federal spending in years? GORE: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. I'm so glad that I have the chance to knock that down. Look, the problem is that under Governor Bush's plan, $1.6 trillion tax cut, mostly to the wealthy, under his own budget numbers, he proposes spending more money for a tax cut just for the wealthiest 1% than all the new money he budgets for education, health care and national defense combined. Now under my plan we'll balance the budget every year. I'm not just saying this. I'm not just talking. I have helped to balance the budget for the first time in 30 years, paid down the debt. And under my plan, in four years, as the percentage of our gross domestic product, federal spending will be the smallest that it has been in 50 years. One reason is, you know, the third biggest spending item in our budget is interest on the national debt? We get nothing for it. We keep the good faith and credit of the United States. I will pay down the debt every single year until it is eliminated early in the next decade. That gets rid of the third biggest intrusion of the federal government in our economy. Now, because the governor has all this money for a tax cut mostly to the wealthy, there is no money left over, so schools get testing and lawsuit reform and not much else. MODERATOR: Governor, the vice president says you're wrong. BUSH: Well, he's wrong. (LAUGHTER) Just add up all the numbers. It's three times bigger than what President Clinton proposed. The Senate Budget Committee -- MODERATOR: Three times -- excuse me, three times bigger than what President Clinton proposed? GORE: That was in an ad, Jim, that was knocked down by the journalists who analyzed the ad and said it was misleading. BUSH: My turn? MODERATOR: Yes, sir. BUSH: Forget the journalists. He proposed more than Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis combined. This is a big spender. And you ought to be proud of it, it's part of his record. We just have a different philosophy. Let me talk about tax relief. If you pay taxes, you ought to get tax relief. The Vice President believes only the right people ought to get tax relief. I don't think that's the role of the president to pick you're right and you're not right. I think if you're going to have tax relief, everybody ought to get it. And therefore, wealthy people are going to get it. But the top 1% will end up paying one-third of the taxes in America and they get one-fifth of the benefits. And that's because we structured the plan so that six million additional American families pay no taxes. If you're a family of four making $50,000 in Missouri, you get a 50% cut in your federal income taxes. What I've done is set priorities and funded them. And there's extra money. And I believe the people who pay the bills ought to get some money back. It's a difference of opinion. He wants to grow the government and I trust you with your own money. I wish we could spend an hour talking about trusting people. It's just the right position to take. GORE: Can we take the time -- MODERATOR: Governor -- yeah, hold on one second here, thought. The governor just reversed the thing. What do you say specifically to what the vice president said tonight, he said it many, many times, that your tax cut benefits the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans, and you've heard what he said. BUSH: Of course it does. If you pay taxes, you are going to get a benefit. People who pay taxes will get tax relief. MODERATOR: All right. Why shouldn't they? BUSH: Let me finish. Under my plan, if you make -- the top -- the wealthy people pay 62% of the taxes today. Afterwards they pay 64%. This is a fair plan. You know why? Because the tax code is unfair for people at the bottom end of the economic ladder. If you're a single mother making $22,000 a year today and you're trying to raise two children, for every additional dollar you earn you pay a higher marginal rate on that dollar than someone making $200,000, and that's not right. So I want to do something about that. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore? GORE: Yeah, look. Look, this isn't about Governor Bush, it's not about me. It is about you. And I want to come back to something I said before. If you want somebody who believes that we were better off eight years ago than we are now and that we ought to go back to the kind of policies that we had back then, emphasizing tax cuts mainly for the wealthy, here is your man. If you want somebody who will fight for you and who will fight to have middle-class tax cuts, then I am your man. I want to be. Now, I doubt anybody here makes more than $330,000 a year. I won't ask you, but if you do, you're in the top 1%. MODERATOR: It would be a violation of the rules. They couldn't -- GORE: I'm not going to ask them. But if everyone here in this audience was dead on in the middle of the middle-class, then the tax cuts for every single one of you all added up would be less than the tax cut his plan would give to just one member of that top wealthiest 1%. Now you judge for yourselves whether or not that's fair. MODERATOR: Quick, and then we're moving on. BUSH: Good. 50 million Americans get no tax relief under his plan. GORE: That's not right. BUSH: You may not be one of them, you're just not one of the right people. And secondly, we've had enough fighting. It's time to unite. You talk about eight years? In eight years they haven't gotten anything done on Medicare, on Social Security, a patient's bill of rights. It's time to get something done. GORE: Hey, I've got to answer that, Jim. MODERATOR: All right. GORE: Medicare -- I cast the tie-breaking vote to add 26 years to the life of Medicare. It was due to go bankrupt in 1999 and that 50 million figure again, the newspapers -- I said -- you said forget the journalists, but they are the keepers of the score card and whether or not you're using facts that aren't right. And that fact is just not right. MODERATOR: Speaking of keepers of the score card, that's what I'm trying to do here Mr. Vice President and Governor Bush. We're gonna move on. We're gonna have to move on. All right, there were 12 questions on foreign and military matters, and the first one that we're going to ask will be directed to you, Governor Bush. And David Norwood is going to ask it. Mr. Norwood, where are you? There you are. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: What would you make -- what would make you the best candidate in office during the Middle East crisis? BUSH: I've been a leader. I've been a person who has to set a clear vision and convince people to follow. I've got a strategy for the Middle East. And first let me say that our nation now needs to speak with one voice during this time, and I applaud the president for working hard to diffuse tensions. Our nation needs to be credible and strong. When we say we're somebody's friend, everybody has got to believe it. Israel is our friend and we'll stand by Israel. We need to reach out to modern Arab nations as well. To build coalitions to keep the peace. I also need -- the next leader needs to be patient. We can't put the Middle East peace process on our timetable. It's got to be on the timetable of the people that we're trying to bring to the peace table. We can't dictate the terms of peace, which means that you have to be steady. You can't worry about polls or focus groups. You've got to have a clear vision. That's what a leader does. A leader also understands that the United States must be strong to keep the peace. Saddam Hussein still is a threat in the Middle East. Our coalition against Saddam is unraveling. Sanctions are loosened. The man who may be developing weapons of mass destruction, we don't know because inspectors aren't in. So to answer your question, it requires a clear vision, a willingness to stand by our friends, and the credibility for people both friend and foe to understand when America says something, we mean it. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore? GORE: I see a future when the world is at peace, with the United States of America promoting the values of democracy and human rights and freedom all around the world. Even in Iran they have had an election that began to bring about some change. We stand for those values and we have to be willing to assert them. Right now our military is the strongest in the entire history of the world. I will -- I pledge to you I will do whatever is necessary to make sure that it stays that way. Now, what can I bring to that challenge? When I was a young man, my father was a senator opposed to the Vietnam War. When I graduated from college, there were plenty of fancy ways to get out of going and being a part of that. I went and I volunteered, and I went to Vietnam. I didn't do the most or run the greatest risk by a long shot, but I learned what it was like to be an enlisted man in the United States Army. In the Congress, in the House of Representatives, I served on the House Intelligence Committee and I worked hard to learn the subject of nuclear arms control and how we can diffuse these tensions and deal with non-proliferation and deal with the problems of terrorism and these new weapons of mass destruction. Look, we're gonna face some serious new challenges in the next four years. I've worked on that long and hard. When I went to the United States Senate, I asked for an assignment to the Armed Services Committee. And while I was there I worked on a bipartisan basis, as I did in the House, I worked with former President Reagan on the modernization of our strategic weaponry. In the Senate I was one of only ten Democrats, along with Senator Joe Lieberman, to support Governor Bush's dad in the Persian Gulf War Resolution. And for the last eight years I've served on the National Security Council. Can I say just one other thing here? MODERATOR: No, sir. We'll get that -- I'm gonna -- the next question is to you. GORE: Fine, I'll wait. MODERATOR: It's a related -- it's a related question that is going to be asked by Kenneth Allen. Mr. Allen? GORE: I think he gets a -- oh, I'm sorry, you're right, go ahead. MODERATOR: Mr. Allen, right there. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Today our military forces are stretched thinner and doing more than they have ever done before during peacetime. I would like to know what you are -- I think we would all like to know what you as president would do to ensure proper resourcing for the current mission and/or more selectively choosing the time and place that our forces will be used around the world. GORE: Thank you, sir. Just to finish briefly, I started to say that for the last eight years I've been on the National Security Council. Last week I broke up -- I suspended campaigning for two days, or parts of two days, to go back and participate in the meetings that charted the President's summit meeting that he just returned from earlier today. And our team of -- our country's team over there did a great job. It's a difficult situation. The United States has to be strong in order to make sure that we can help promote peace and security and stability. And that means keeping our military strong. Now, I said earlier that we are the strongest military, but we need to continue improving readiness and making sure that our military personnel are adequately paid and that the combination of their pay and their benefits and their retirement as veterans is comparable to the stiff competition that's coming in this strong economy from the private sector. And I have supported the largest pay raise in many a year, and I support another one now. I also support modernization of our strategic and tactical weaponry. The governor has proposed skipping a generation of technology. I think that would be a mistake, because I think one of the ways we've been able to be so successful in Kosovo and Bosnia and Haiti and in other places is by having the technological edge. You know, we won that conflict in Kosovo without losing a single human life in combat, a single American life in combat. Now, readiness. The trends before we -- before I got my current job were on the decline, the number of divisions were reduced. I argued that we should reverse that trend and take it back up. And I'm happy to tell you that we have. Now, in my budget for the next ten years I propose $100 billion for this purpose. The governor proposes $45 billion. I propose more than twice as much because I think it's needed. MODERATOR: Governor Bush, two minutes. BUSH: If this were a spending contest, I would come in second. I readily admit I'm not going to grow the size of the federal government like he is. Your question was deployment. It must be in the national interests, must be in our vital interests whether we ever send troops. The mission must be clear. Soldiers must understand why we're going. The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well-defined. I'm concerned that we're overdeployed around the world. See, I think the mission has somewhat become fuzzy. Should I be fortunate enough to earn your confidence, the mission of the United States military will be to be prepared and ready to fight and win war. And therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. There may be some moments when we use our troops as peacekeepers, but not often. The Vice President mentioned my view of long-term for the military. I want to make sure the equipment for our military is the best it can possibly be, of course. But we have an opportunity -- we have an opportunity to use our research and development capacities, the great technology of the United States, to make our military lighter, harder to find, more lethal. We have an opportunity, really, if you think about it, if we're smart and have got a strategic vision and a leader who understands strategic planning, to make sure that we change the terms of the battlefield of the future so we can keep the peace. This is a peaceful nation, and I intend to keep the peace. Spending money is one thing. But spending money without a strategic plan can oftentimes be wasted. First thing I'm going to do is ask the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan so we are making sure we're not spending our money on political projects, but on projects to make sure our soldiers are well-paid, well-housed, and have the best equipment in the world. MODERATOR: Governor Bush, another kind of gun question. It will be asked by Robert Lutz. Mr. Lutz? MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Governor Bush -- BUSH: Yes, sir. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: We would just like to know what is your opposition to the Brady Handgun bill? BUSH: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: We would like to know why you object to the Brady Handgun bill, if you do object to it. Because in a recent TV ad it showed that the National Rifle Association says that if you are elected, that they will be working out of your office. BUSH: I don't think the National Rifle Association ran that ad. But let me just tell you my position on guns in general, sir, if you don't mind. MODERATOR: Excuse me, I'm not sure he's finished with his question. BUSH: I'm sorry. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: That kind of bothers me when I see an ad like that. I want you to explain that ad to me. BUSH: Well, I don't think I ran the ad. I think somebody who doesn't want me to be president might have run that ad. That wasn't my ad. I think it might have been one of my opponent's ads. Here is what I believe, sir. I believe law-abiding citizens ought to be allowed to protect themselves and their families. I believe that we ought to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them. That's why I'm for instant background checks at gun shows, I'm for trigger locks, I think that makes sense. Matter of fact, we distributed free trigger locks in the State of Texas so that people can get them and put them on their guns to make their guns more safe. I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun. But I also believe strongly that we need to enforce laws on the books that the best way to make sure that we keep our society safe and secure is to hold people accountable for breaking the law. If we catch somebody illegally selling a gun, there needs to be a consequence. If we keep somebody -- you know, illegally using a gun, there needs to be a consequence. Enforcement of law, and the federal government can help. There is a great program called Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia, where we focused federal taxpayers' money and federal prosecutors and went after people who were illegally using guns. To me that's how you make society the safest it can be. And so, yeah, sometimes I agree with some of these groups in Washington and sometimes I don't. I'm a pretty independent thinker. The one thing I'm for is a safe society. And I'm for enforcing laws on the books. And that's what is going to happen should I earn your confidence. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore? GORE: Well, it was not one of my ads, either, Governor. But I am familiar with the statement, and it was made by one of the top-ranking officials of that organization. Let me tell you my position. I think that some common sense gun safety measures are certainly needed with the flood of cheap handguns that have sometimes been working their way into the hands of the wrong people. But all of my proposals are focused on that problem, gun safety. None of my proposals would have any effect on hunters, or sportsmen, or people who use rifles. They're aimed at the real problem. Let's make our schools safe, let's make our neighborhoods safe. Let's have a three-day waiting period, cooling off, so we can have a background check to make sure that criminals and people who really shouldn't have guns don't get them. But I would like to use my remaining time on this exchange, Jim, to respond to an exchange that took place just a moment ago. Because a couple of times the governor has said that I am for a bigger government. Governor, I'm not. And let me tell you what the record shows. For the last eight years I have had the challenge of running the streamlining program called Reinventing Government. And if there are any federal employees in this group, you know what that means. The federal government has been reduced in size by more than 300,000 people. And it's now the smallest number that we have had since the -- the smallest in size since John Kennedy's administration. During the last five years, Texas's government has gone up in size. Federal government has gone down, Texas's government has gone up. Now, my plan for the future, I see a time when we have smaller, smarter government where you don't have to wait in line because you can get services online cheaper, better, faster. We can do that. MODERATOR: Steve Luecker has a question, and it is for Vice President Gore. Mr. Luecker? There you are. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Vice President Gore. The family farms are disappearing and having a hard time even in the current positive economic environment. What steps would you or your administration take on agricultural policy developments to protect the family farms for this multi-functional service they perform? GORE: We've got a bumper crop this year. But that's the good news. You know what the bad news is that follows on that. The prices are low. In the last several years, the so-called Freedom To Farm Law has, in my view, been mostly a failure. I want to change many of its provisions. Now, many here who are not involved in farming don't -- won't follow this, so just forgive me. Because the 2% of the country that is involved in farming is important because the rest of us wouldn't eat except for them. And you guys have been having a hard time, and I want to fight for you. I want to change those provisions. I want to restore a meaningful safety net. And I think that you pointed the way in your comments, because when you say there are multiple things accomplished by farmers, you're specifically including conservation and protection of the environment. And yes, farmers are the first environmentalists. And when they decide not to plow a field that is vulnerable to soil erosion, that may cost them a little money, but it helps the environment. I think that we ought to have an expanded conservation reserve program. And I think that the environmental benefits that come from sound management of the land ought to represent a new way for farmers to get some income that will enable them -- enable you to make sensible choices in crop rotation, and when you leave the land fallow and the rest. Now, I'll go beyond that and say I think we need much more focus on rural economic development programs. I see a time when the Internet-based activities are more available in the rural areas and where the extra source of income that farm families used to have from shoe factories is replaced by an extra source of income from working in the information economy. So we need to do a lot of things, but we ought to start with a better safety net. MODERATOR: Governor Bush, two minutes. BUSH: I would like our farmers feeding the world. We're the best producers in the world, and I want -- I want the farmers feeding the world. We need to open up markets. Exports are down, and every time an export number goes down, it hurts the farmer. I want the next president to have fast track negotiating authority to open up markets around the world with the best and the most efficient farmers. I don't want to use food as a diplomatic weapon from this point forward. We shouldn't be using food. It hurts the farmers. It's not the right thing to do. I'm for value-added processing. We need more work on value-added processing. You take the raw product you produce, I presume you're a farmer, off your farm, and you convert it. Value-added processing is important. I'm for research and development. Spending research and development money so that we can use our technological base to figure out new uses for farm products. I'm for getting rid of the death tax, completely getting rid of the death tax. One reason family farmers are forced to sell early is because of the death tax. This is a bad tax. The President shouldn't have vetoed that bill. It's a tax that taxes people twice. It penalizes the family farmer. So should I be fortunate enough to earn your vote, I also understand -- I want to open up markets, but I also understand that farming is a part of our national security. I'm from a big farm state. We're the second biggest state -- farming state in the country. And I hear from my farmers and friends all the time. The Vice President is right, by the way. Every day is earth day if you own the land. I like the policies that will encourage farmers to put -- set aside land as well for conservation purposes. Thank you. MODERATOR: A quick thing on the inheritance tax. There is a difference between the two of you on this. Vice President Gore? GORE: Yeah. I'm for a massive reform of the estate tax or the death tax. And under the plan that I've proposed, 80% of all family farms will be completely exempt from the estate tax. And the vast majority of all family businesses would be completely exempt, and all of the others would have sharply reduced. So 80% -- now the problem with completely eliminating it goes back to the wealthiest 1%. The amount of money that has to be raised in taxes for middle-class families to make up for completely eliminating that on the very wealthiest, the billionaires, that would be an extra heavy burden on middle-class families. And so let's do it for most all, but not completely eliminate it for the very top. MODERATOR: What's the case for doing that, Governor? BUSH: Eliminating the death tax. MODERATOR: Completely. BUSH: Because people shouldn't be taxed twice on their assets. It's either unfair for some or unfair for all. Again, this is just a difference of opinion. If you're from Washington, you want to pick and choose winners. I don't think that's the role of the president. I think if you're going to have tax relief, everybody benefits. Secondly, I think your plan -- a lot of fine print in your plan, Mr. Vice President, with all due respect. It is -- I'm not so sure 80% of the people get the death tax. I know this, 100% will get it if I'm the president. I just don't think it's fair to tax people's assets twice regardless of your status. It's a fairness issue. It's an issue of principle, not politics. MODERATOR: New issue. New issue. And the question will be asked by Joyce Cleamer of Governor Bush. Joyce Cleamer? There you are. BUSH: Hi, Joyce. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Hi, Governor. I'm very concerned about the morality of our country now. TV, movies, the music that our children are, you know, barraged with every day. And I want to know if there's anything that can be worked out with the -- Hollywood, or whoever, to help get rid of some of this bad language and whatever, you know. It's just bringing the country down. And our children are very important to us and we're concerned about their education at school. We should be concerned about their education at home, also. Thank you. BUSH: Appreciate that question. Laura and I are proud parents of teenage girls, twin daughters, and I know what you're saying. Government ought to stand on the side of parents. Parents are teaching their children right from wrong, and the message oftentimes gets undermined by the popular culture. You bet there's things that government can do. We can work with the entertainment industry to provide family hour. We can have filters on Internets where public money is spent. There ought to be filters in public libraries and filters in public schools so if kids get on the Internet, there is not going to be pornography or violence coming in. I think we ought to have character education in our schools. I know that doesn't directly talk about Hollywood, but it does reinforce the values you're teaching. Greatly expand character education funding so that public schools will teach children values, values which have stood the test of time. There's afterschool money available. I think that afterschool money ought to be available for faith-based programs and charitable programs that exist because somebody has heard the call to love a neighbor like you would like to be loved yourself. That will help reinforce the values that parents teach at home as well. Ours is a great land, and one of the reasons why is because we're free. And so I don't support censorship. But I do believe that we ought to talk plainly to the Hollywood moguls and people who produce this stuff and explain the consequences. I think we need to have rating systems that are clear. I happen to like the idea of having technology for the TV, easy for parents to use so you can tune out these programs you don't want in your house. I'll remind mothers and dads the best weapon is the off/on button, and paying attention to your children, and eating dinner with them and being -- I'm sorry. GORE: My turn. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore. GORE: I care a lot about this. It's not just movies; television, video games, music, the Internet. Parents now feel like you have to compete with the mass culture in order to raise your kids with the values that you want them to have. Tipper and I have four children. And God bless them, every one of them decided on their own to come here this evening. I don't want to embarrass our oldest daughter. She and her husband made us grandparents almost a year-and-a-half ago, and yet if she'll forgive me, when she was little, she brought a record home that had some awful lyrics in it and Tipper hit the ceiling. And that launched a campaign to try to get the record companies to put ratings that -- warning labels for parents. And I'm so proud of what she accomplished in getting them on there. I've been involved myself in negotiating and helping to move along the negotiations with the Internet service providers to get a parents' protection page every time 95% of the pages come up. And a feature that allows parents to automatically check with one click what sites your kids have visited lately. You know, some parents are worried about those filters, that you will have to ask your kids how to put them on there. But if you can check up on them, that's real power. And recently the Federal Trade Commission pointed out that some of these entertainment companies have warned parents that the material is inappropriate for children, and then they've turned around behind the backs of the parents and advertised that same adult material directly to children. That is an outrage. Joe Lieberman and I gave them six months to clean up their act. And if they don't do it, we're gonna ask for tougher authority in the hands of the FTC on the false and deceptive advertising. I'll tell you this, I want to do something about this. Respect the First Amendment, but I will do something to help you raise your kids without that garbage. MODERATOR: All right. Vice President Gore, the next question is for you, and it will be asked by Steven Koosmann. Mr. Koosmann, where are you, sir? You're right behind me as well. There we go. GORE: Right next to the left. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: It seems that when we hear about issues of this campaign, it's usually Medicare, Social Security or prescription drugs. As a college professor, I hear a lot of apathy amongst young people who feel that there are no issues directed to them. And they don't plan to vote. How do you address that? GORE: We've got to change it. I spend a good deal of time talking to young people, and in my standard speech out there on the stump I usually end my speech by saying, I want to ask you for something and I want to direct it especially to the young people in the audience. And I want to tell you what I tell them. Sometimes people who are very idealistic and have great dreams, as young people do, are apt to stay at arm's length from the political process because they think their good hearts might be brittle, and if they invest their hopes and allow themselves to believe, then they're gonna be let down and disappointed. But thank goodness we've always had enough people who have been willing in every generation to push past the fear of a broken heart and become deeply involved in forming a more perfect union. We're America, and we believe in our future and we know we have the ability to shape our future. Now, we've got to address one of the biggest threats to our democracy. And that is the current campaign financing system. And I know they say it doesn't rank anywhere on the polls. I don't believe that's a fair measure. I'm telling you, I will make it the -- I will make the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill the very first measure that I send to the Congress as president. Governor Bush opposes it. I wish that he would consider changing his mind on that. Because I think that the special interests have too much power, and we need to give our democracy back to the American people. Let me tell you why. Those issues you mentioned, Social Security, prescription drugs, the big drug companies are against the prescription drug proposal that I've made. The HMOs are against the patient's rights bill, the Dingle-Norwood bill that I support. The big oil companies are against the measures to get more energy independence and renewable fuel. They ought to have their voices heard, but they shouldn't have a big megaphone that drowns out the American people. We need campaign finance reform and we need to shoot straight with young and old alike and tell them what the real choices are. And we can renew and rekindle the American spirit and make our future what our founders dreamed it could be. We can. MODERATOR: Governor Bush, two minutes. BUSH: Tell you what I hear. A lot of people are sick and tired of the bitterness in Washington, D.C. and therefore they don't want any part of politics. They look at Washington and see people pointing fingers and casting blame and saying one thing and doing another. There's a lot of young folks saying, you know, why do I want to be involved with this mess? And what I think needs to happen in order to encourage the young to become involved is to shoot straight, is to set aside the partisan differences, and set an agenda that will make sense. Medicare, I know you talked about it, but Medicare is relevant for all of us, young and old alike. We better get it right now. Tax reform is relevant for old and young alike. I don't think it's the issues that turn kids off. I think it's the tone. I think it's the attitude. I think it's a cynicism in Washington and it doesn't have to be that way. Before I decided to run, I had to resolve two issues in my mind. One, could our family endure all this business. And I came to the conclusion that our love was strong enough to be able to do it. The other was could an administration change the tone in Washington, D.C. And I believe the answer is yes, otherwise I wouldn't be asking for your vote. That's what happened in Texas. We worked together. There is a man here in this audience named Hugo Berlanga. He is the chairman of the health committee. He came here for a reason, to tout our record on health in Texas. He's a Democrat. I didn't care whether he was a Republican or Democrat. What I cared about is could we work together. That's what Washington, D.C. needs. And finally, sir, to answer your question, you need somebody in office who will tell the truth. That's the best way to get people back in the system. MODERATOR: Governor Bush, Norma Curby has the next question. And it's for you. Norma Curby, where are you? BUSH: Hi, Norma. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Hi. How will your administration address diversity, inclusiveness, and what role will affirmative action play in your overall plan? BUSH: I've had a record of bringing people from all walks of life into my administration, and my administration is better off for it in Texas. I'm going to find people that want to serve their country. But I want a diverse administration, I think it's important. I've worked hard in the State of Texas to make sure our institutions reflect the state with good, smart policy. Policy that rejects quotas. I don't like quotas. Quotas tend to pit one group of people against another. Quotas are bad for America. It's not the way America is all about. But policies that give people a helping hand so they can help themselves. For example, in our State of Texas I worked with the legislature, both Republicans and Democrats, to pass a law that said if you come in the top 10% of your high school class, you're automatically admitted to one of our higher institutions of learning, college. And as a result, our universities are now more diverse. It was a smart thing to do. What I called it, I labeled it affirmative access. I think the contracting business in government can help. Not with quotas, but help meet a goal of ownership of small businesses, for example. The contracts need to be smaller, the agencies need to be -- need to recruit and to work hard to find people to bid on the state contracts. I think we can do that in a way that represents what America is all about, which is equal opportunity and an opportunity for people to realize their potential. So to answer your question, I support, I guess the way to put it, is affirmative access. I'll have an administration that will make you proud. Thank you. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore? GORE: I believe in this goal and effort with all my heart. I believe that our future as a nation depends upon whether or not we can break down these barriers that have been used to pit group against group, and bring our people together. How do you do it? Well, you establish respect for differences. You don't ignore differences. It's all too easy for somebody in the majority in the population to say oh, we're just all the same, without an understanding of the different life experience that you've had, that others have had. Once you have that understanding and mutual respect, then we can transcend the differences and embrace the highest common denominator of the American spirit. I don't know what affirmative access means. I do know what affirmative action means. I know the governor is against it, and I know that I'm for it. I know what a hate crime statute pending at the national level is all about in the aftermath of James Byrd's death. I'm for that proposed law, the governor is against it. I know what it means to have a commitment to diversity. I am part of an administration that has the finest record on diversity. And incidentally, an excellent -- I mean, I think our success over the last eight years has not been in spite of diversity but because of it. Because we're able to draw on the wisdom and experience from different parts of the society that hadn't been tapped in the same way before. And incidentally, Mel Carnahan in Missouri had the finest record on diversity in any governor in the entire history of the State of Missouri. And I want to honor that among his other achievements here. Now, I just believe that what we have to do is enforce the civil rights laws. I'm against quotas. This is, with all due respect, Governor, that's a red herring. Affirmative action isn't quotas. I'm against quotas, they're illegal. They're against the American way. Affirmative action means that you take extra steps to acknowledge the history of discrimination and injustice and prejudice and bring all people into the American dream because it helps everybody, not just those who are directly benefitting. MODERATOR: Governor, what is your -- are you opposed to affirmative action? BUSH: If affirmative action means quotas, I'm against it. If affirmative action means what I just described what I'm for, then I'm for it. You heard what I was for. The vice president keeps saying I'm against things. You heard what I was for, and that's what I support. MODERATOR: What about -- Mr. Vice President, you heard what he said. GORE: He said if affirmative action means quotas, he's against it. Affirmative action doesn't mean quotas. Are you for it without quotas? BUSH: I may not be for your version, Mr. Vice President, but I'm for what I just described to the lady. GORE: Are you for what the Supreme Court says is a constitutional way of having affirmative action? MODERATOR: Let's go on to another -- GORE: I think that speaks for itself. BUSH: No, it doesn't speak for itself, Mr. Vice President, it speaks for the fact that there are certain rules in this that we all agree to, but evidently rules don't mean anything. MODERATOR: The question is for you, Vice President Gore, and Lisa Kee will ask it. Lisa Kee, where are you? There we go, sorry. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: How will your tax proposals affect me as a middle-class, 34-year-old single person with no dependents? GORE: If you make less than $60,000 a year and you decide to invest $1,000 in a savings account, you'll get a tax credit, which means in essence that the federal government will match your $1,000 with another $1,000. If you make less than $30,000 a year and you put $500 in a savings account, the federal government will match it with $1500. If you make more than $60,000 and up to 100 you'll still get a match, but not as generous. You'll get an access to life-long learning and education, help with tuition if you want to get a new skill or training. If you want to purchase health insurance, you will get help with that. If you want to participate in some of the dynamic changes that are going on in our country, you will get specific help in doing that. If you are part of the -- of the bottom 20% or so of wage earners, then you will get an expanded earned income tax credit. Now, the tax relief that I propose is directed specifically at middle-income individuals and families. And if you have a -- if you have an elderly parent or grandparent who needs long-term care, then you will get help with that. $3,000 tax credit to help your expenses in taking care of a loved one who needs long-term care. MODERATOR: Governor Bush? BUSH: Let me just say the first -- this business about the entitlement he tried to describe about savings, you know, matching savings here and matching savings there, fully-funded it's gonna cost a whole lot of money, a lot more than we have. You're going to get a tax refund in my plan. You're not going to be targeted in or targeted out. Everybody that pays taxes is going to get tax relief. If you take care of an elderly in your home, you're going to get the personal exemption increased. I think also what you need to think about is not the immediate, but what about Medicare? You get a plan that will include prescription drugs, a plan that will give you options. Now, I hope people understand that Medicare today is important, but it doesn't keep up with the new medicines. If you're a Medicare person, on Medicare, you don't get the new procedures. You're stuck in a time warp in many ways. So it will be a modern Medicare system that trusts you to make a variety of options for you. You're going to live in a peaceful world. It will be a world of peace because we're going to have a clear sight of foreign policy based upon a strong military and a mission that stands by our friends. A mission that doesn't try to be all things to all people. A judicious use of the military which will help keep the peace. You'll live in a world, hopefully, that is more educated so it's less likely you'll be harmed in your neighborhood. See, an educated child is one much more likely to be hopeful and optimistic. You'll be in a world in which fits into my philosophy. The harder you work, the more you can keep. It's the American way. Government shouldn't be a heavy hand. It's what the federal government does to you. It should be a helping hand, and tax relief and the proposals I just described should be a good helping hand. MODERATOR: Governor, next question is for you, and Leo Anderson will ask it. Mr. Anderson. You want a mike? MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: In one of the last debates held, the subject of capital punishment came up, and in your response to the question, you seemed overly joyed and as a matter of fact proud that Texas led the nation in the execution of prisoners. Sir, did I misread your response and are you really, really proud of the fact that Texas is number one in executions? BUSH: No, I'm not proud of that. The death penalty is a very serious business, Leo. It's an issue that good people obviously disagree on. I take my job seriously. And if you think I was proud of it, I think you misread me, I do. I was sworn to uphold the laws of my state. During the course of the campaign in 1994 I was asked do you support the death penalty. I said I did if administered fairly and justly. Because I believe it saves lives, Leo, I do. If it's administered swiftly, justly and fairly, it saves lives. One of the things that happens when you're a governor, at least oftentimes you have to make tough decisions. You can't let public persuasion sway you, because the job is to enforce the law. And that's what I did, sir. There have been some tough cases come across my desk. Some of the hardest moments since I've been the governor of the State of Texas is to deal with those cases. But my job is to ask two questions, sir. Is the person guilty of the crime? And did the person have full access to the courts of law? And I can tell you looking at you right now, in all cases those answers were affirmative. I'm not proud of any record. I'm proud of the fact that violent crime is down in the State of Texas. I'm proud of the fact that we hold people accountable. But I'm not proud of any record, sir, I'm not. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore? GORE: I support the death penalty. I think that it has to be administered not only fairly with attention to things like DNA evidence, which I think should be used in all capital cases, but also with very careful attention. If, for example, somebody confesses to the crime and somebody is waiting on death row, there has to be alertness to say wait a minute, have we got the wrong guy? If the wrong guy is put to death, then that's a double tragedy. Not only has an innocent person been executed, but the real perpetrator of the crime has not been held accountable for it. And in some cases may be still at large. But I support the death penalty in the most heinous cases. MODERATOR: Do both of you believe the death penalty actually deters crime? Governor? BUSH: I do. It's the only reason to be for it. Let me finish, sir. I don't think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don't think that's right. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people's lives. GORE: I think it is a deterrent. I know that's a controversial view, but I do believe it's a deterrent. MODERATOR: Next question is for you, Vice President Gore, and Thomas Fischer will ask it. Mr. Fischer? MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Yes. My 6th grade class at St. Claire's School wanted to ask of all these promises you guys are making and all the pledges, will you keep them when you're in office? (LAUGHTER) GORE: Yes. (LAUGHTER) I am a person who keeps promises. And, you know, we've heard a lot about -- from the governor about not much being done in the last eight years, as if the promises that I made eight years ago have not been kept. I think the record shows otherwise. We have gone from the biggest deficits eight years ago to the biggest surpluses in history today. Instead of high unemployment, we now have the lowest African-American unemployment, the lowest Latino unemployment ever measured. 22 million new jobs, very low unemployment nationally. Instead of ballooning the debt and multiplying it four times over, we have seen the debt actually begun to be paid down. Here are some promises that I'll make to you now. I will balance the budget every year. I will pay down the debt every year. I will give middle-class Americans tax cuts, meaningful ones. And I will invest in education, health care, protecting the environment and retirement security. We both made promises in this campaign. I promise you I will keep mine. Let me tell you about one of the governor's. He has promised a trillion dollars out of the Social Security Trust Fund for young working adults to invest and save on their own. But he's promised seniors that their Social Security benefits will not be cut, and he's promised the same trillion dollars to them. So this is a show me state. Reminds me of the line from the movie, "Show me the money." Which one of those promises will be keep and which will you break, Governor? MODERATOR: Governor Bush. BUSH: Thank you for your question. (LAUGHTER) I -- there's an old high school debating trick, which is to answer something and then attack your opponent at the end. You asked about promises. You were promised that Medicare would be reformed, and that Social Security would be reformed. You were promised a middle-class tax cut in 1992. It didn't happen. There's too much bitterness in Washington. There's too much wrangling. It's time to have a fresh start. One of the reasons I was successful as the governor of Texas is because I didn't try to be all things to all people. When I campaigned in a race, a lot of folks didn't think I could win including, by the way, my mother. (LAUGHTER) I said I'd do four things; tort reform, education reform, welfare reform and juvenile justice reform. And I won. And I had the will of the people in my state behind me. And then I brought folks together to get it done. And that's what we need, I think, in this election. To me that's what it's all about. I'm sure your 6th grade kids are listening and saying, these guys will say anything to get elected. But there's a record, and that's what I hope people look at. One of my promises is going to be Social Security reform, and you bet, we need to take a trillion dollars out of that $2.4 trillion surplus. Now remember, Social Security revenue exceeds expenses up until 2015. People are going to get paid. But if you're a younger worker, if you're younger, you better hope this country thinks differently, otherwise you're gonna be faced with huge payroll taxes or reduced benefits. And you bet we're gonna take a trillion dollars of your own money and let you invest it under safe guidelines so you get a better rate of return on the money than the paltry 2% that the federal government gets for you today. That's one of my promises. But it's gonna require people to bring both Republicans and Democrats together to get it done. That's what it requires. There was a chance to get this done. It was a bipartisan approach, but it's been rejected. I'm going to bring them together. MODERATOR: Both of you -- both of you on this subject. There are other questions that also go to this skepticism, not necessarily about you, but all people in politics. Why is that? GORE: Well, first of all, Jim, I would like to respond to what the governor just said. Because the trillion dollars that has been promised to young people has also been promised to older people. And you cannot keep both promises. If you're in your mid-40's under the governor's plan, Social Security will be bankrupt by the time you retire, if he takes it out of the Social Security Trust Fund. Under my plan it will be -- its solvency will be extended until you're 100. Now that is the difference. And the governor may not want to answer that question, he may want to call it a high school debating trick, but let me tell you this. This election is not about debating tricks, it is about your future. The reason Social Security -- he says it gets 2%. You know, it's not a bank account that just pays back money that's invested. It is also used to give your mothers and fathers the Social Security checks that they live on. If you take a trillion dollars out of that Social Security Trust Fund, how are the checks going to be -- how are you going to keep faith with the seniors? Now let me come directly to your question. MODERATOR: We have to go to the closing statements and -- BUSH: Well, can I answer that? One reason people are skeptical is because people don't answer the questions they've been asked. The trillion dollars comes out of the surplus so that you can invest some of your own money. There's just a difference of opinion. I want workers to have their own assets. It's who you trust, government or people. MODERATOR: All right. Now we're going to go to closing statements. Vice President Gore, you're first. GORE: Thank you very much, Jim, and I'll begin by answering your questions -- your last question. I believe that a lot of people are skeptical about people in politics today because we have seen a time of great challenge for our country. Since the assassination of our best leaders in the '60's, since the Vietnam War, since Watergate, and because we need campaign finance reform. I would like to tell you something about me. I keep my word. I have kept the faith. I've kept the faith with my country. I volunteered for the Army. I served in Vietnam. I kept the faith with my family. Tipper and I have been married for 30 years. We have devoted ourselves to our children and now our nearly one-and-a-half-year-old grandson. I have kept the faith with our country. Nine times I have raised my hand to take an oath to the Constitution, and I have never violated that oath. I have not spent the last quarter century in pursuit of personal wealth. I have spent the last quarter century fighting for middle-class working men and women in the United States of America. I believe very deeply that you have to be willing to stand up and fight no matter what powerful forces might be on the other side. If you want somebody who is willing to fight for you, I am asking for your support and your vote and, yes, your confidence and your willingness to believe that we can do the right thing in America, and be the better for it. We've made some progress during the last eight years. We have seen the strongest economy in the history of the United States. Lower crime rates for eight years in a row. Highest private home ownership ever, but I'll make you one promise here. You ain't seen nothing yet. And I will keep that promise. MODERATOR: Governor Bush, two minutes. BUSH: Well, Jim, I want to thank you and thank the folks here at Washington University and the vice president. Appreciate the chance to have a good, honest dialogue about our differences of opinion. I think after three debates the good people of this country understand there is a difference of opinion. There is a difference between big federal government and somebody who is coming from outside of Washington who will trust individuals. I've got an agenda that I want to get done for the country. It's an agenda that says we're going to reform Medicare to make sure seniors have got prescription drugs and to give seniors different options from which they can choose. It's an agenda that says we're listen to the young voices in Social Security and say we're going to think differently about making sure we have a system, but also fulfill the promise to the seniors in America. A promise made will be a promise kept should I be fortunate enough to become your president. I want to have the military keeping the peace. I want to make sure the public school system in America keeps its promise so not one child is left behind. After setting priorities, I want to give some of your money back. I don't think the surplus is the government's money. I think it's the people's money. I don't think it exists because of the ingenuity and hard work of the federal government, I think in exists because of the ingenuity and hard work of the American people. And you ought to have some of this surplus so you can save and dream and build. I look forward to the final weeks of this campaign. I'm asking for your vote. For those of you for me, thanks for your help. For those of you for my opponent, please only vote once. (LAUGHTER) But for those who have not made up their mind, I would like to conclude by this promise. Should I be fortunate enough to become your president, when I put my hand on the Bible, I will swear to not only uphold the laws of the land, but I will also swear to uphold the honor and the dignity of the office to which I have been elected, so help me God. Thank you very much. MODERATOR: A closing piece of business before we go. The Debate Commission wants reaction to the three kinds of formats used in the debates this year, and you may register an opinion at their website at www.debates.org . Vice President Gore, Governor Bush, thank you. And good night from Washington University in St. Louis.

February 18, 1981 Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, distinguished Members of Congress, honored guests, and fellow citizens: Only a month ago I was your guest in this historic building, and I pledged to you my cooperation in doing what is right for this Nation that we all love so much. I'm here tonight to reaffirm that pledge and to ask that we share in restoring the promise that is offered to every citizen by this, the last, best hope of man on Earth. All of us are aware of the punishing inflation which has for the first time in 60 years held to double-digit figures for 2 years in a row. Interest rates have reached absurd levels of more that 20 percent and over 15 percent for those who would borrow to buy a home. All across this land one can see newly built homes standing vacant, unsold because of mortgage interest rates. Almost 8 million Americans are out of work. These are people who want to be productive. But as the months go by, despair dominates their lives. The threats of layoff and unemployment hang over other millions, and all who work are frustrated by their inability to keep up with inflation. One worker in a Midwest city put it to me this way: He said, "I'm bringing home more dollars than I ever believed I could possibly earn, but I seem to be getting worse off." And he is. Not only have hourly earnings of the American worker, after adjusting for inflation, declined 5 percent over the past 5 years, but in these 5 years, Federal personal taxes for the average family have increased 67 percent. We can no longer procrastinate and hope that things will get better. They will not. Unless we act forcefully—and now—the economy will get worse. Can we, who man the ship of state, deny it is somewhat out of control? Our national debt is approaching $1 trillion. A few weeks ago I called such a figure, a trillion dollars, incomprehensible, and I've been trying ever since to think of a way to illustrate how big a trillion really is. And the best I could come up with is that if you had a stack of thousand-dollar bills in your hand only 4 inches high, you'd be a millionaire. A trillion dollars would be a stack of thousand-dollar bills 67 miles high. The interest on the public debt this year we know will be over $90 billion, and unless we change the proposed spending for the fiscal year beginning October 1st, we'll add another almost $80 billion to the debt. Adding to our troubles is a mass of regulations imposed on the shopkeeper, the farmer, the craftsman, professionals, and major industry that is estimated to add $100 billion to the price of the things we buy, and it reduces our ability to produce. The rate of increase in American productivity, once one of the highest in the world, is among the lowest of all major industrial nations. Indeed, it has actually declined in the last 3 years. Now, I've painted a pretty grim picture, but I think I've painted it accurately. It is within our power to change this picture, and we can act with hope. There's nothing wrong with our internal strengths. There has been no breakdown of the human, technological, and natural resources upon which the economy is built. Based on this confidence in a system which has never failed us, but which we have failed through a lack of confidence and sometimes through a belief that we could fine-tune the economy and get it tuned to our liking, I am proposing a comprehensive four-point program. Now, let me outline in detail some of the principal parts of this program. You'll each be provided with a completely detailed copy of the entire program. This plan is aimed at reducing the growth in government spending and taxing, reforming and eliminating regulations which are unnecessary and unproductive or counterproductive, and encouraging a consistent monetary policy aimed at maintaining the value of the currency. If enacted in full, this program can help America create 13 million new jobs, nearly 3 million more than we would have without these measures. It will also help us to gain control of inflation. It's important to note that we're only reducing the rate of increase in taxing and spending. We're not attempting to cut either spending or taxing levels below that which we presently have. This plan will get our economy moving again, [create] productivity growth, and thus create the jobs that our people must have. And I'm asking that you join me in reducing direct Federal spending by $41.4 billion in fiscal year 1982, and this goes along with another $7.7 billion in user fees and off-budget savings for a total of $49.1 billion. And this will still allow an increase of $40.8 billion over 1981 spending. Now, I know that exaggerated and inaccurate stories about these cuts have disturbed many people, particularly those dependent on grant and benefit programs for their basic needs. Some of you have heard from constituents, I know, afraid that social security checks, for example, were going to be taken away from them. Well, I regret the fear that these unfounded stories have caused, and I welcome this opportunity to set things straight. We will continue to fulfill the obligations that spring from our national conscience. Those who, through no fault of their own, must depend on the rest of us—the poverty stricken, the disabled, the elderly, all those with true need—can rest assured that the social safety net of programs they depend on are exempt from any cuts. The full retirement benefits of the more than 31 million social security recipients will be continued, along with an annual cost-of-living increase. Medicare will not be cut, nor will supplemental income for the blind, the aged, and the disabled. And funding will continue for veterans pensions. School breakfasts and lunches for the children of low-income families will continue, as will nutrition and other special services for the aging. There will be no cut in Project Head Start or summer youth jobs. All in all, nearly $216 billion worth of programs providing help for tens of millions of Americans will be fully funded. But government will not continue to subsidize individuals or particular business interests where real need cannot be demonstrated. And while we will reduce some subsidies to regional and local governments, we will at the same time convert a number of categorical grant programs into block grants to reduce wasteful administrative overhead and to give local governments and States more flexibility and control. We call for an end in duplication to Federal programs and reform of those which are not cost-effective. Now, already some have protested that there must be no reduction in aid to schools. Well, let me point out that Federal aid to education amounts to only 8 percent of the total educational funding, and for this 8 percent, the Federal Government has insisted on tremendously disproportionate share of control over our schools. Whatever reductions we've proposed in that 8 percent will amount to very little in the total cost of education. They will, however, restore more authority to States and local school districts. Historically, the American people have supported by voluntary contributions more artistic and cultural activities than all the other countries in the world put together. I wholeheartedly support this approach and believe that Americans will continue their generosity. Therefore, I'm proposing a savings of $85 million in the Federal subsidies now going to the arts and humanities. There are a number of subsidies to business and industry that I believe are unnecessary, not because the activities being subsidized aren't of value, but because the marketplace contains incentives enough to warrant continuing these activities without a government subsidy. One such subsidy is the Department of Energy's synthetic fuels program. We will continue support of research leading to development of new technologies and more independence from foreign oil, but we can save at least $3.2 billion by leaving to private industry the building of plants to make liquid or gas fuels from coal. We're asking that another major industry—business subsidy I should say, the Export-Import Bank loan authority, be reduced by one-third in 1982. We're doing this because the primary beneficiaries of taxpayer funds in this case are the exporting companies themselves—most of them profitable corporations. This brings me to a number of other lending programs in which government makes low-interest loans, some of them at an interest rate as low as 2 percent. What has not been very well understood is that the Treasury Department has no money of its own to lend; it has to go into the private capital market and borrow the money. So, in this time of excessive interest rates, the government finds itself borrowing at an interest rate several times as high as the interest it gets back from those it lends the money to. And this difference, of course, is paid by your constituents—the taxpayers. They get hit again if they try to borrow, because government borrowing contributes to raising all interest rates. By terminating the Economic Development Administration, we can save hundreds of millions of dollars in 1982 and billions more over the next few years. There's a lack of consistent and convincing evidence that EDA and its Regional Commissions have been effective in creating new jobs. They have been effective in creating an array of planners, grantsmen, and professional middlemen. We believe we can do better just by the expansion of the economy and the job creation which will come from our economic program. The Food Stamp program will be restored to its original purpose, to assist those without resources to purchase sufficient nutritional food. We will, however, save $1.8 billion in fiscal year 1982 by removing from eligibility those who are not in real need or who are abusing the program. But even with this reduction, the program will be budgeted for more than $10 billion. We will tighten welfare and give more attention to outside sources of income when determining the amount of welfare that an individual is allowed. This, plus strong and effective work requirements, will save $520 million in the next year. I stated a moment ago our intention to keep the school breakfast and lunch programs for those in true need. But by cutting back on meals for children of families who can afford to pay, the savings will be $1.6 billion in the fiscal year 1982. Now, let me just touch on a few other areas which are typical of the kind of reductions we've included in this economic package. The Trade Adjustment Assistance program provides benefits for workers who are unemployed when foreign imports reduce the market for various American products, causing shutdown of plants and layoff of workers. The purpose is to help these workers find jobs in growing sectors of our economy. There's nothing wrong with that, but because these benefits are paid out on top of normal unemployment benefits, we wind up paying greater benefits to those who lose their jobs because of foreign competition than we do to their friends and neighbors who are laid off due to domestic competition. Anyone must agree that this is unfair. Putting these two programs on the same footing will save $1.15 billion in just 1 year. Earlier I made mention of changing categorical grants to States and local governments into block grants. Now, we know of course that the categorical grant programs burden local and State governments with a mass of Federal regulations and Federal paperwork. Ineffective targeting, wasteful administrative overhead—all can be eliminated by shifting the resources and decision-making authority to local and State government. This will also consolidate programs which are scattered throughout the Federal bureaucracy, bringing government closer to the people and saving $23.9 billion over the next 5 years. Our program for economic renewal deals with a number of programs which at present are not cost-effective. An example is Medicaid. Right now Washington provides the States with unlimited matching payments for their expenditures; at the same time, we here in Washington pretty much • dictate how the States are going to manage those programs. We want to put a cap on how much the Federal Government will contribute, but at the same time allow the States much more flexibility in managing and structuring the programs. I know from our experience in California that such flexibility could have led to far more cost-effective reforms. Now, this will bring a savings of $1 billion next year. The space program has been and is important to America, and we plan to continue it. We believe, however, that a reordering of priorities to focus on the most important and cost-effective NASA programs can result in a savings of a quarter of a million dollars. Now, coming down from space to the mailbox, the Postal Service has been consistently unable to live within its operating budget. It is still dependent on large Federal subsidies. We propose reducing those subsidies by $632 million in 1982 to press the Postal Service into becoming more effective, and in subsequent years the savings will continue to add up. The Economic Regulatory Administration in the Department of Energy has programs to force companies to convert to specific fuels. It has the authority to administer a gas rationing plan, and prior to decontrol it ran the oil price control program. With these and other regulations gone we can save several hundreds of millions of dollars over the next few years. I'm sure there's one department you've been waiting for me to mention, the Department of Defense. It's the only department in our entire program that will actually be increased over the present budgeted figure. But even here there was no exemption. The Department of Defense came up with a number of cuts which reduce the budget increase needed to restore our military balance. These measures will save $2.9 billion in 1982 outlays, and by 1986 a total of $28.2 billion will have been saved—or perhaps I should say, will have been made available for the necessary things that we must do. The aim will be to provide the most effective defense for the lowest possible cost. I believe that my duty as President requires that I recommend increases in defense spending over the coming years. I know that you're all aware—but I think it bears saying again—that since 1970 the Soviet Union has invested $300 billion more in its military forces than we have. As a result of its massive military buildup, the Soviets have made a significant numerical advantage in strategic nuclear delivery systems, tactical aircraft, submarines, artillery, and anti-aircraft defense. To allow this imbalance to continue is a threat to our national security. Notwithstanding our economic straits, making the financial changes beginning now is far less costly than waiting and having to attempt a crash program several years from now. We remain committed to the goal of arms limitation through negotiation. I hope we can persuade our adversaries to come to realistic balanced and verifiable agreements. But, as we negotiate, our security must be fully protected by a balanced and realistic defense program. Now, let me say a word here about the general problem of waste and fraud in the Federal Government. One government estimate indicated that fraud alone may account for anywhere from 1 to 10 percent-as much as $25 billion of Federal expenditures for social programs. If the tax dollars that are wasted or mismanaged are added to this fraud total, the staggering dimensions of this problem begin to emerge. The Office of Management and Budget is now putting together an interagency task force to attack waste and fraud. We're also planning to appoint as Inspectors General highly trained professionals who will spare no effort to do this job. No administration can promise to immediately stop a trend that has grown in recent years as quickly as government expenditures themselves, but let me say this: Waste and fraud in the Federal Government is exactly what I've called it before—an unrelenting national scandal, a scandal we're bound and determined to do something about. Marching in lockstep with the whole program of reductions in spending is the equally important program of reduced tax rates. Both are essential if we're to have economic recovery. It's time to create new jobs, to build and rebuild industry, and to give the American people room to do what they do best. And that can only be done with a tax program which provides incentive to increase productivity for both workers and industry. Our proposal is for a 10-percent across the-board cut every year for 3 years in the tax rates for all individual income taxpayers, making a total cut in the tax-cut rates of 30 percent. This 3-year reduction will also apply to the tax on unearned income, leading toward an eventual elimination of the present differential between the tax on earned and unearned income. Now, I would have hoped that we could be retroactive with this. But as it stands, the effective starting date for these 10-percent personal income tax rate reductions will call for as of July 1st of this year. Again, let me remind you that while this 30-percent reduction will leave the taxpayers with $500 billion more in their pockets over the next 5 years, it's actually only a reduction in the tax increase already built into the system. Unlike some past "tax reforms," this is not merely a shift of wealth between different sets of taxpayers. This proposal for an equal reduction in everyone's tax rates will expand our national prosperity, enlarge national incomes, and increase opportunities for all Americans. Some will argue, I know, that reducing tax rates now will be inflationary. A solid body of economic experts does not agree. And tax cuts adopted over the past three-fourths of a century indicate these economic experts are right. They will not be inflationary. I've had advice that in 1985 our real production in goods and services will grow by 20 percent and be $300 billion higher than it is today. The average worker's wage will rise in real purchasing power 8 percent, and this is in after-tax dollars. And this, of course, is predicated on a complete program of tax cuts and spending reductions being implemented. The other part of the tax package is aimed directly at providing business and industry with the capital needed to modernize and engage in more research and development. This will involve an increase in depreciation allowances, and this part of our tax proposal will be retroactive to January 1st. The present depreciation system is obsolete, needlessly complex, and economically counterproductive. Very simply, it bases the depreciation of plant machinery and vehicles and tools on their original cost, with no recognition of how inflation has increased their replacement cost. We're proposing a much shorter write-off time than is presently allowed—a 5-year-write-off for machinery, 3 years for vehicles and trucks, and a 10-year write-off for plant. In fiscal year 1982 under this plan, business would acquire nearly $10 billion for investment; by 1985, the figure would be nearly 45 billion. These changes are essential to provide the new investment which is needed to create millions of new jobs between now and 1985 [1986], and to make America competitive once again in the world market. These won't be make-work jobs. They are productive jobs, jobs with a future. I'm well aware that there are many other desirable and needed tax changes, such as indexing the income tax brackets to protect taxpayers against inflation; the unjust discrimination against married couples if both are working and earning; tuition tax credits; the unfairness of the inheritance tax, especially to the family-owned farm and the family-owned business; and a number of others. But our program for economic recovery is so urgently needed to begin to bring down inflation that I'm asking you to act on this plan first and with great urgency. And then, I pledge I will join with you in seeking these additional tax changes at the earliest date possible. American society experienced a virtual explosion in government regulation during the past decade. Between 1970 and 1979, expenditures for the major regulatory agencies quadrupled. The number of pages published annually in the Federal Register nearly tripled, and the number of pages in the Code of Federal Regulations increased by nearly two-thirds. The result has been higher prices, higher unemployment, and lower productivity growth. Overregulation causes small and independent business men and women, as well as large businesses to defer or terminate plans for expansion. And since they're responsible for most of the new jobs, those new jobs just aren't created. Now, we have no intention of dismantling the regulatory agencies, especially those necessary to protect environment and assure the public health and safety. However, we must come to grips with inefficient and burdensome regulations, eliminate those we can and reform the others. I have asked Vice President Bush to head a Cabinet-level Task Force on Regulatory Relief. Second, I asked each member of my Cabinet to postpone the effective dates of the hundreds of new regulations which have not yet been implemented. Third, in coordination with the Task Force, many of the agency heads have already taken prompt action to review and rescind existing burdensome regulations. And finally, just yesterday I signed an Executive order that for the first time provides for effective and coordinated management of the regulatory process. Much has been accomplished, but it's only a beginning. We will eliminate those regulations that are unproductive and unnecessary by Executive order where possible and cooperate fully with you on those that require legislation. The final aspect of our plan requires a national monetary policy which does not allow money growth to increase consistently faster than the growth of goods and services. In order to curb inflation we need to slow the growth in our money supply. Now, we fully recognize the independence of the Federal Reserve System and will do nothing to interfere with or undermine that independence. We will consult regularly with the Federal Reserve Board on all aspects of our economic program and will vigorously pursue budget policies that'll make their job easier in reducing monetary growth. A successful program to achieve stable and and moderate growth patterns in the money supply will keep both inflation and interest rates down and restore vigor to our financial institutions and markets. This, then, is our proposal—America's new beginning: a program for economic recovery. I don't want it to be simply the plan of my administration. I'm here tonight to ask you to join me in making it our plan. Together we can embark on this road [applause] . Thank you very much. I should have arranged to quit right here. [Laughter] Well, together we can embark on this road, not to make things easy, but to make things better. Our social, political, and cultural, as well as our economic institutions, can no longer absorb the repeated shocks that have been dealt them over the past decades. Can we do the job? The answer is yes. But we must begin now. We're in control here. There's nothing wrong with America that together we can't fix. I'm sure there'll be some who raise the old familiar cry, "Don't touch my program; cut somewhere else." I hope I've made it plain that our approach has been evenhanded, that only the programs for the truly deserving needy remain untouched. The question is, are we simply going to go down the same path we've gone down before, carving out one special program here, another special program there? I don't think that's what the American people expect of us. More important, I don't think that's what they want. They're ready to return to the source of our strength. The substance and prosperity of our nation is built by wages brought home from the factories and the mills, the farms, and the shops. They are the services provided in 10,000 corners of America; the interest on the thrift of our people and the returns for their risk-taking. The production of America is the possession of those who build, serve, create, and produce. For too long now, we've removed from our people the decisions on how to dispose of what they created. We've strayed from first principles. We must alter our course. The taxing power of government must be used to provide revenues for legitimate government purposes. It must not be used to regulate the the economy or bring about social change. We've tried that, and surely we must be able to see it doesn't work. Spending by government must be limited to those functions which are the proper province of government. We can no longer afford things simply because we think of them. Next year we can reduce the budget by $41.4 billion, without harm to government's legitimate purposes or to our responsibility to all who need our benevolence. This, plus the reduction in tax rates, will help bring an end to inflation. In the health and social services area alone, the plan we're proposing will substantially reduce the need for 465 pages of law, 1,400 pages of regulations, 5,000 Federal employees who presently administer 7,600 separate grants in about 25,000 separate locations. Over 7 million man and woman hours of work by State and local officials are required to fill out government forms. I would direct a question to those who have indicated already an unwillingness to accept such a plan: Have they an alternative which offers a greater chance of balancing the budget, reducing and eliminating inflation, stimulating the creation of jobs, and reducing the tax burden? And, if they haven't, are they suggesting we can continue on the present course without coming to a day of reckoning? If we don't do this, inflation and the growing tax burden will put an end to everything we believe in and our dreams for the future. We don't have an option of living with inflation and its attendant tragedy, millions of productive people willing and able to work but unable to find a buyer for their work in the job market. We have an alternative, and that is the program for economic recovery. True, it'll take time for the favorable effects of our proposal to be felt. So, we must begin now. The people are watching and waiting. They don't demand miracles. They do expect us to act. Let us act together. Thank you, and good night. Source: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-before-joint-session-the-congress-the-program-for-economic-recovery-0

October 11, 2000   MODERATOR: Let's welcome the candidates, Governor Bush and Vice President Gore. Good evening, from Wake Chapel at Wake Forest University at Winston-Salem, North Carolina. I'm Jim Lehrer of the News Hour on PBS. Welcome to this second election 2000 debate between the Republican candidate for president, George W. Bush of Texas, and the Democratic candidate, Vice President Al Gore. These debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The format and the rules are those negotiated by representatives of the two campaigns. Only the subjects tonight and the questions are mine. The format tonight is that of a conversation. The only prevailing rule is that no single response can ever, ever exceed two minutes. The prevailing rule for the audience here in the hall is as always, absolute quiet, please. Good evening, Governor Bush, Vice President Gore. The end of our 90 minutes last week in Boston, the total time each of you took was virtually the same. Let's see if we can do the same tonight, or come close. Governor Bush, the first question goes to you. One of you is about to be elected the leader of the single-most powerful nation in the world, economically, financially, militarily, diplomatically, you name it. Have you formed any guiding principles for exercising this enormous power? BUSH: I have, I have. First question is what's in the best interests of the United States? What's in the best interests of our people? When it comes to foreign policy that will be my guiding question. Is it in our nation's interests? Peace in the Middle East is in our nation's interests. Having a hemisphere that is free for trade and peaceful is in our nation's interests. Strong relations in Europe is in our nation's interest. I've thought a lot about what it means to be the president. I also understand that an administration is not one person, but an administration is dedicated citizens who are called by the president to serve the country, to serve a cause greater than self, and so I've thought about an administration of people who represent all America, but people who understand my compassionate and conservative philosophy. I haven't started naming names except for one person, and that's Mr. Richard Cheney who I thought did a great job the other night. He's a vice presidential nominee who represents -- I think people got to see why I picked him. He's man of solid judgment and he's going to be a person to stand by my side. One of the things I've done in Texas is I've been able to put together a good team of people. I've been able to set clear goals. The goals ought to be an education system that leaves no child behind, Medicare for our seniors, a Social Security system that's safe and secure, foreign policy that's in our nation's interest, and a strong military, and then bring people together to achieve those goals. That's what a Chief Executive Officer does. So I've thought long and hard about the honor of being the President of the United States. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore? GORE: Yes, Jim. I've thought a lot about that particular question, and I see our greatest national strength coming from what we stand for in the world. I see it as a question of values. It is a great tribute to our founders that 224 years later this nation is now looked to by the peoples on every other continent and the peoples from every part of this earth as a kind of model for what their future could be. And I don't think that's just the kind of exaggeration that we take pride in as Americans. It's really true, even the ones that sometimes shake their fists at us. As soon as they have a change that allows the people to speak freely, they're wanting to develop some kind of blueprint that will help them be like us more, freedom, free markets, political freedom. So I think first and foremost our power ought to be wielded to in ways that form a more perfect union. The power of example is America's greatest power in the world. And that means, for example, standing up for human rights. It means addressing the problems of injustice and inequity, along the lines of race and ethnicity here at home, because in all these other places around the world where they're having these terrible problems, when they feel hope, it is often because they see in us a reflection of their potential. So we've got to enforce our civil rights laws. We've got to deal with things like racial profiling. And we have to keep our military strong. We have the strongest military, and I'll do whatever is necessary, if I'm president, to make sure that it stays that way. But our real power comes, I think, from our values. MODERATOR: Should the people of the world look at the United States, Governor, and say, should they fear us, should they welcome our involvement, should they see us as a friend, everybody in the world? How would you project us around the world, as president? BUSH: Well, I think they ought to look at us as a country that understands freedom where it doesn't matter who you are or how you're raised or where you're from, that you can succeed. I don't think they'll look at us with envy. It really depends upon how our nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And it's -- our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power, and that's why we have to be humble. And yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. So I don't think they ought to look at us in any way other than what we are. We're a freedom-loving nation and if we're an arrogant nation they'll view us that way, but if we're a humble nation they'll respect us. MODERATOR: A humble nation. GORE: I agree with that. I agree with that. I think that one of the problems that we have faced in the world is that we are so much more powerful than any single nation has been in relationship to the rest of the world than at any time in history, that I know about, anyway. That there is some resentment of U.S. power. So I think that the idea of humility is an important one. But I think that we also have to have a sense of mission in the world. We have to protect our capacity to push forward what America's all about. That means not only military strength and our values, it also means keeping our economy strong. You know, in the last, or two decades ago it was routine for leaders of foreign countries to come over here and say you guys have got to do something about these horrendous deficits because it's causing tremendous problems for the rest of the world, and we were lectured to all the time. The fact that we have the strongest economy in history today is not good enough. We need to do more. But the fact that it is so strong enables us to project the power for good that America can represent. MODERATOR: Does that give us -- does our wealth, our good economy, our power, bring with it special obligations to the rest of the world? BUSH: Yes, it does. Take, for example, Third World debt. I think we ought to be forgiving Third World debt under certain conditions. I think, for example, if we're convinced that a Third World country that's got a lot of debt would reform itself, that the money wouldn't go into the hands of a few but would go to help people, I think it makes sense for us to use our wealth in that way, or to trade debt for valuable rain forest lands, makes that much sense, yes. We do have an obligation, but we can't be all things to all people. We can help build coalitions but we can't put our troops all around the world. We can lend money but we have to do it wisely. We shouldn't be lending money to corrupt officials. So we have to be guarded in our generosity. MODERATOR: Let's go through some of the specifics now. New question. Vice President Gore, the governor mentioned the Middle East. Here we're talking at this stage in the game about diplomatic power that we have. What do you think the United States should do right now to resolve that conflict over there? GORE: The first priority has to be on ending the violence, dampening down the tensions that have arisen there. We need to call upon Syria to release the three Israeli soldiers who have been captured. We need to insist that Arafat send out instructions to halt some of the provocative acts of violence that have been going on. I think that we also have to keep a weather eye toward Saddam Hussein because he is taking advantage of this situation to once again make threats, and he needs to understand that he's not only dealing with Israel, he is dealing -- he's dealing with us if he is making the kind of threats that he's talking about there. The use of diplomacy in this situation has already, well, it goes hour-by-hour and day-by-day now. It's a very tense situation there. But in the last 24 hours there has been some subsiding of the violence there. It's too much to hope that this is going to continue, but I do hope that it will continue. Our country has been very active with regular conversations with the leaders there. And we just have to take it day-to-day right now. But one thing I would say where diplomacy is concerned, Israel should feel absolutely secure about one thing. Our bonds with Israel are larger than agreements or disagreements on some details of diplomatic initiatives. They are historic, they are strong, and they are enduring. And our ability to serve as an honest broker is something that we need to shepherd. MODERATOR: Governor? BUSH: Well, I think during the campaign, particularly now during this difficult period, we ought to be speaking with one voice, and I appreciate the way the administration has worked hard to calm the tensions. Like the vice president, I call on Chairman Arafat to have his people pull back to make the peace. I think credibility is going to be very important in the future in the Middle East. I want everybody to know should I be the president Israel's going to be our friend. I'm going to stand by Israel. Secondly, that I think it's important to reach out to moderate Arab nations, like Jordan and Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. It's important to be friends with people when you don't need each other so that when you do there's a strong bond of friendship. And that's going to be particularly important in dealing not only with situations such as now occurring in Israel, but with Saddam Hussein. The coalition against Saddam has fallen apart or it's unraveling, let's put it that way. The sanctions are being violated. We don't know whether he's developing weapons of mass destruction. He better not be or there's going to be a consequence should I be the president. But it's important to have credibility and credibility is formed by being strong with your friends and resoluting your determination. One of the reasons why I think it's important for this nation to develop an anti-ballistic missile system that we can share with our allies in the Middle East if need be to keep the peace is to be able to say to the Saddam Husseins of the world or the Iranians, don't dare threaten our friends. It's also important to keep strong ties in the Middle East, credible ties, because of the energy crisis we're now in. After all, a lot of the energy is produced from the Middle East, and so I appreciate what the administration is doing. I hope to get a sense of should I be fortunate to be the president how my administration will react to the Middle East. MODERATOR: So you don't believe, Vice President Gore, that we should take sides and resolve this right now? A lot of people pushing hey, the United States should declare itself and not be so neutral in this particular situation. GORE: Well, we stand with Israel, but we have maintained the ability to serve as an honest broker. And one of the reasons that's important is that Israel cannot have direct dialogue with some of the people on the other side of conflicts, especially during times of tension, unless that dialogue comes through us. And if we throw away that ability to serve as an honest broker, then we have thrown -- we will have thrown away a strategic asset that's important not only to us but also to Israel. MODERATOR: You agree with that, Governor? BUSH: I do. I do think this, though. When it comes to timetables it can't be the United States timetable as to how discussions take place. It's got to be a timetable that all parties can agree to, like the Palestinians and Israelis. Secondly, any lasting peace is going to have to be a peace that's good for both sides. And therefore, the term honest broker makes sense. This current administration's worked hard to keep the parties at the table. I will try to do the same thing. But it won't be on my timetable, it will be on the timetable that people are comfortable with in the Middle East. MODERATOR: People watching here tonight are very interested in Middle East policy, and they are so interested they want to base their vote on differences between the two of you as president how you would handle Middle East policy. Is there any difference? GORE: I haven't heard a big difference in the last few exchanges. BUSH: That's hard to tell. I think that, you know, I would hope to be able to convince people I could handle the Iraqi situation better. MODERATOR: Saddam Hussein, you mean, get him out of there? BUSH: I would like to, of course, and I presume this administration would as well. We don't know -- there are no inspectors now in Iraq, the coalition that was in place isn't as strong as it used to be. He is a danger. We don't want him fishing in troubled waters in the Middle East. And it's going to be hard, it's going to be important to rebuild that coalition to keep the pressure on him. MODERATOR: You feel that is a failure of the Clinton administration? BUSH: I do. GORE: Well, when I got to be a part of the current administration, it was right after -- I was one of the few members of my political party to support former President Bush in the Persian Gulf War resolution, and at the end of that war, for whatever reason, it was not finished in a way that removed Saddam Hussein from power. I know there are all kinds of circumstances and explanations. But the fact is that that's the situation that was left when I got there. And we have maintained the sanctions. Now I want to go further. I want to give robust support to the groups that are trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and I know there are allegations that they're too weak to do it, but that's what they said about the forces that were opposing Milosevic in Serbia, and you know, the policy of enforcing sanctions against Serbia has just resulted in a spectacular victory for democracy just in the past week, and it seems to me that having taken so long to see the sanctions work there, building upon the policy of containment that was successful over a much longer period of time against the former Soviet Union in the communist block, seems a little early to declare that we should give up on the sanctions. I know the governor's not necessarily saying that but, you know, all of these flights that have come in, all of them have been in accordance with the sanctions regime, I'm told, except for three where they notified, and they're trying to break out of the box, there's no question about it. I don't think they should be allowed to. MODERATOR: Did he state your position correctly, you're not calling for eliminating the sanctions, are you? BUSH: No, of course not, absolutely not, I want them to be tougher. MODERATOR: Let's go on to Milosevic and Yugoslavia, and it falls under the area of our military power. Governor, new question. Should the fall of Milosevic be seen as a triumph for U.S. military intervention? BUSH: I think it's a triumph. I thought the president made the right decision in joining NATO and bombing Serbia. I supported them when they did so. I called upon the Congress not to hamstring the administration, and in terms of forcing troop withdrawals on a timetable that wasn't necessarily in our best interest or fit our nation's strategy, and so I think it's good public policy, I think it worked, and I'm pleased I took -- made the decision I made. I'm pleased the president made the decision he made. Because freedom to go in that part of the world, and where there's a lot of work left to be done, however. MODERATOR: But you think it would not have happened -- do you think that Milosevic would not have fallen if the United States and NATO had not intervened militarily? Is this a legitimate use of our military power? BUSH: Yes, I think it is. Absolutely. I don't think he would have fallen had we not used the force. And I know there are some in our party that disagree with that sentiment. I supported the president. I thought he made the right decision to do so. I didn't think he necessarily made the right decision to take land troops off the table right before we committed ourselves offensively, but nevertheless, it worked. The administration deserves credit for having made it work. It is important for NATO to have it work. It's important for NATO to be strong and confident and to help keep the peace in Europe. And one of the reasons I felt so strongly that the United States needed to participate was because of our relations with NATO, and NATO is going to be an important part of keeping the peace in the future. Now, there's more work to do. Remains to be seen, however, whether or not there's going to be a political settlement in Kosovo, and I certainly hope there is one. Also on record as saying at some point in time I hope our European friends become the peacekeepers in Bosnia and in the Balkans. I hope that they put the troops on the ground so that we can withdraw our troops and focus our military on fighting and winning war. GORE: Well, I've been kind of a hard-liner on this issue for more than eight years. When I was in the senate before I became vice president I was pushing for stronger action against Milosevic. He caused the death of so many people. He was the last communist party boss there and then he became a dictator that by some other label he was still essentially a communist dictator. And unfortunately now he is trying to reassert himself in Serbian politics. Already just today the members of his political party said that they were going to ignore the orders of the new president of Serbia, and that they question his legitimacy, and he's still going to try to be actively involved. He is an indicted war criminal. He should be held accountable. Now, I did want to pick up on one of the statements earlier, and maybe I have heard, maybe I have heard the previous statements wrong, Governor. In some of the discussions we've had about when it's appropriate for the U.S. to use force around the world, at times the standards that you've laid down have given me the impression that if it's something like a genocide taking place or what they called ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, that that alone would not be, that that wouldn't be the kind of situation that would cause you to think that the U.S. ought to get involved with troops. Now, have to be other factors involved for me to want to be involved. But by itself, that to me can bring into play a fundamental American strategic interest because I think it's based on our values. Now, have I got that wrong? MODERATOR: Trying to figure out who the questioner was. BUSH: If I think it's in our nation's strategic interest I'll commit troops. I thought it was in our strategic interests to keep Milosevic in check because of our relations in NATO, and that's why I took the position I took. I think it's important for NATO to be strong and confident. I felt like unchecked Milosevic would harm NATO, and so it depends on the situation, Mr. Vice President. MODERATOR: Well, let's stay on the subject for a moment. New question related to this. I figured this out; in the last 20 years there have been eight major actions that involved the introduction of U.S. ground, air or naval forces. Let me name them. Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, the Persian Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Kosovo. If you had been president for any of those interventions, would any of those interventions not have happened? GORE: Can you run through the list again? MODERATOR: Sure. Lebanon. GORE: I thought that was a mistake. MODERATOR: Grenada. GORE: I supported that. MODERATOR: Panama. GORE: I supported that. MODERATOR: Persian Gulf. GORE: Yes, I voted for it, supported it. MODERATOR: Somalia. GORE: Of course, and that again -- no, I think that that was ill-considered. I did support it at the time. It was in the previous administration, in the Bush-Quayle administration, and I think in retrospect the lessons there are ones that we should take very, very seriously. MODERATOR: Bosnia. GORE: Oh, yes. MODERATOR: Haiti. GORE: Yes. MODERATOR: And then Kosovo. GORE: Yes. MODERATOR: We talked about that. Want me to do it with you? Lebanon. BUSH: Make a couple comments. MODERATOR: Sure, absolutely, sure. Somalia. BUSH: Started off as a humanitarian mission and it changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price. And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow the dictator when it's in our best interests. But in this case it was a nation-building exercise, and same with Haiti. I wouldn't have supported either. MODERATOR: What about Lebanon? BUSH: Yes. MODERATOR: Grenada. BUSH: Yes. MODERATOR: Panama? BUSH: Yes. Some of them I've got a conflict of interest on, if you know what I mean. MODERATOR: I do, I do. The Persian Gulf, obviously. And Bosnia. And you have already talked about Kosovo. But the reverse side of the question, Governor, that Vice President Gore mentioned, 600,000 people died in Rwanda in 1994. There was no U.S. intervention, no intervention from the outside world. Was that a mistake not to intervene? BUSH: I think the administration did the right thing in that case. I do. It was a horrible situation, no one liked to see it on our TV screens, but it's a case where we need to make sure we have an early warning system in place in places where there could be ethnic cleansing and genocide the way we saw it there in Rwanda. And that's a case where we need to use our influence to have countries in Africa come together and help deal with the situation. The administration, seem like we're having a great love for us tonight, but the administration made the right decision on training Nigerian troops for situations just such as this in Rwanda, and so I thought they made the right decision not to send U.S. troops into Rwanda. MODERATOR: Do you have any second thoughts on that, based on what you said a moment ago about genocide? GORE: I'd like to come back to the question of nation building, but let me address the question directly, first. Fine. We did, actually, send troops into Rwanda to help with the humanitarian relief measures. My wife Tipper, who is here, actually went on a military plane with General Sholicatchvieli on one of those flights. But I think in retrospect we were too late getting in there. We could have saved more lives if we had acted earlier. But I do not think that it was an example of a conflict where we should have put our troops in to try to separate the parties for this reason, Jim. One of the criteria that I think is important in deciding when and if we should ever get involved around the world is whether or not our national security interest is involved, if we can really make the difference with military forces. We tried everything else. If we have allies in the Balkans we have allies, NATO, ready, willing and able to go and carry a big part of the burden. In Africa we did not. Now, we have tried -- our countries tried to create an Africa crisis response team there, and we've met some resistance. We have had some luck with Nigeria, but in Sierra Leon, and now that Nigeria has become a democracy, and we hope it stays that way, then maybe we can build on that. But because we had no allies and because it was very unclear that we could actually accomplish what we would want to accomplish about putting military forces there, I think it was the right thing not to jump in, as heartbreaking as it was, but I think we should have come in much quicker with the humanitarian mission. MODERATOR: So what would you say, Governor, that somebody would say hey wait a minute, why not Africa, I mean why the Middle East, why the Balkans, but not Africa, when 600,000 people's lives are at risk? BUSH: Well, I understand, and Africa is important. And we've got to do a lot of work in Africa to promote democracy and trade, and there are some -- Vice President mentioned Nigeria is a fledgling democracy. We have to work with Nigeria. That's an important continent. But there's got to be priorities, and Middle East is a priority for a lot of reasons, as is Europe and the Far East, our own hemisphere. And those are my four top priorities should I be the president, not to say we won't be engaged nor work hard to get other nations to come together to prevent atrocity. I thought the best example of a way to handle the situation was East Timor when we provided logistical support to the Australians, support that only we can provide. I thought that was a good model. But we can't be all things to all people in the world, Jim. And I think that's where maybe the vice president and I begin to have some differences. I'm worried about overcommitting our military around the world. I want to be judicious in its use. You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation building mission, and it was not very successful. It cost us billions, a couple billions of dollars, and I'm not so sure democracy is any better off in Haiti than it was before. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, do you agree with the governor's views on nation building, the use of military, our military, for nation building as he described and defined it? GORE: I don't think we agree on that. I would certainly also be judicious in evaluating any potential use of American troops overseas. I think we have to be very reticent about that. But look, Jim, the world is changing so rapidly. The way I see it, the world is getting much closer together. Like it or not, we are now -- the United States is now the natural leader of the world. All these other countries are looking to us. Now, just because we cannot be involved everywhere, and shouldn't be, doesn't mean that we should shy away from going in anywhere. Now, both of us are kind of, I guess, stating the other's position in a maximalist extreme way, but I think there is a difference here. This idea of nation building is kind of a pejorative phrase, but think about the great conflict of the past century, World War II. During the years between World War I and World War II, a great lesson was learned by our military leaders and the people of the United States. The lesson was that in the aftermath of World War I, we kind of turned our backs and left them to their own devices and they brewed up a lot of trouble that quickly became World War II. And acting upon that lesson in the aftermath of our great victory in World War II, we laid down the Marshall Plan, President Truman did. We got intimately involved in building NATO and other structures there. We still have lots of troops in Europe. And what did we do in the late '40's and '50's and '60's? We were nation building. And it was economic. But it was also military. And the confidence that those countries recovering from the wounds of war had by having troops there. We had civil administrators come in to set up their ways of building their towns back. MODERATOR: You said in the Boston debate, Governor, on this issue of nation building, that the United States military is overextended now. Where is it overextended? Where are there U.S. military that you would bring home if you become president? BUSH: First let me just say one comment about what the vice president said. I think one of the lessons in between World War I and World War II is we let our military atrophy. And we can't do that. We've got to rebuild our military. But one of the problems we have in the military is we're in a lot of places around the world. And I mentioned one, and that's the Balkans. I would very much like to get our troops out of there. I recognize we can't do it now, nor do I advocate an immediate withdrawal. That would be an abrogation of our agreement with NATO. No one is suggesting that. But I think it ought to be one of our priorities to work with our European friends to convince them to put troops on the ground. And there is an example. Haiti is another example. Now there are some places where I think -- you know, I've supported the administration in Columbia. I think it's important for us to be training Columbians in that part of the world. The hemisphere is in our interest to have a peaceful Columbia. But -- MODERATOR: The use of the military, there -- some people are now suggesting that if you don't want to use the military to maintain the peace, to do the civil thing, is it time to consider a civil force of some kind that comes in after the military that builds nations or all of that? Is that on your radar screen? BUSH: I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation building core from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops. I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the peninsula, not only to keep the peace in the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO, but I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the extra strategy obvious. GORE: I don't disagree with that. I certainly don't disagree that we ought to get our troops home from places like the Balkans as soon as we can, as soon as the mission is complete. That's what we did in Haiti. There are no more than a handful of American military personnel in Haiti now. And Haitians have their problems, but we gave them a chance to restore democracy. That's really about all we can do. But if you have a situation like that right in our backyard with chaos about to break out and flotillas forming to come across the water, and all kinds of violence there, right in one of our neighboring countries there, then I think that we did the right thing there. And as for this idea of nation building, the phrase sounds grandiose. And, you know, we can't be -- we can't allow ourselves to get overextended. I certainly agree with that. And that's why I've supported building up our capacity. I've devoted in the budget I've proposed, as I said last week, more than twice as much as the governor has proposed. I think that it's in better shape now than he generally does. We've had some disagreements about that. He said that two divisions would have to report not ready for duty, and that's not what the joint chiefs say. But there's no doubt that we have to continue building up readiness and military strength. And we have to also be very cautious in the way we use our military. MODERATOR: In the non-military area of influencing events around the world, the financial and economic are, the World Bank President Wilfinson said recently, Governor, that U.S. contributions to overseas development assistance is lower now almost than it has ever been. Is that a problem for you? Do you think -- what is your -- what is your idea about what the United States' obligations are? I'm talking about financial assistance and that sort of thing to other countries, the poor countries. BUSH: Well, I mentioned Third World debt. MODERATOR: Sure. BUSH: That's a place where we can use our generosity to influence in a positive way, influence nations. I believe we ought to have foreign aid, but I don't think we ought to just have foreign aid for the sake of foreign aid. I think foreign aid needs to be used to encourage markets and reform. I think a lot of times we just spend aid and say we feel better about it and it ends up being spent the wrong way, and there's some pretty egregious examples recently. One being Russia, where we had IMF loans that ended up in the pockets of a lot of powerful people and didn't help the nation. I think the IMF has got a role in the world, but I don't want to see the IMF out there as a way to say to world bankers, if you make a bad loan, we'll bail you out. It needs to be available for emergency situations. I thought the President did the right thing with Mexico and was very strongly supportive of the administration in Mexico. But I don't think the IMF ought to be a stop loss for people who ought to be able to evaluate risks themselves. So I'll look at every place where we're investing money. I just want to make sure the return is good. MODERATOR: Do you think we're meeting our obligations properly? GORE: No, I would make some changes. I think there need to be reforms in the IMF. I've generally supported it, but I've seen them make some calls that I thought were highly questionable. And I think that there's a general agreement in many parts of the world now that there ought to be changes in the IMF. The World Bank I think is generally doing a better job, but I think one of the big issues here that doesn't get nearly enough attention is the issue of corruption. The governor mentioned it earlier. I've worked on this issue. It's an enormous problem and corruption in official agencies, like militaries and police departments around the world, customs officials, that's one of the worst forms of it. And we have got to again lead by example and help these other countries that are trying to straighten out their situations find the tools in order to do it. I just think, Jim, that this is an absolutely unique period in world history. The world has come together, as I said, they're looking to us. And we have a fundamental choice to make. Are we going to step up to the plate as a nation the way we did after World War II, the way that generation of heroes said okay, the United States is going to be the leader. And the world benefitted tremendously from the courage that they showed in those post-war years. I think that in the aftermath of the Cold War, it's time for us to do something very similar, to step up to the plate, to provide the leadership on the environment, leadership to make sure the world economy keeps moving in the right direction. Again, that means not running big deficits here and not squandering our surplus. It means having intelligent decisions that keep our prosperity going and shepherds that economic strength so that we can provide that leadership role. BUSH: Let me comment on that. I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say this is the way it's got to be. We can help. And maybe it's just our difference in government, the way we view government. I want to empower the people. I want to help people help themselves, not have government tell people what to do. I just don't think it's the role of the United States to walk into a country and say, we do it this way, so should you. I think we can help. I know we've got to encourage democracy in the marketplaces. But take Russia, for example. We went into Russia, we said here is some IMF money, and it ended up in Viktor Chemomyrdin's pocket, and others, and yet we played like there was reform. The only people that are going to reform Russia are Russia. They're going to have to make the decision themselves. Mr. Putin is going to have to make the decision as to whether or not he wants to adhere to rule of law and normal accounting practices so that if countries and/or entities invest capital, there's a reasonable rate of return, a way to get the money out of the economy. But Russia has to make the decision. We can work with them on security matters, for example, but it's their call to make. So I'm not exactly sure where the vice president is coming from, but I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American is for us to go around the world saying, we do it this way, so should you. Now, we trust freedom. We know freedom is a powerful, powerful, powerful force, much bigger than the United States of America, as we saw recently in the Balkans. But maybe I misunderstand where you're coming from, Mr. Vice President, but I think the United States must be humble and must be proud and confident of our values, but humble in how we treat nations that are figuring out how to chart their own course. MODERATOR: Lets move on. No, let's move on. GORE: Far be it from me to suggest otherwise. (LAUGHTER) MODERATOR: First, a couple of follow-ups from the vice presidential debate last week. Vice President Gore, would you support or sign, as president, a federal law banning racial profiling by police and other authorities at all levels of government? GORE: Yes, I would. The only thing an executive order can accomplish is to ban it in federal law enforcement agencies, but I would also support a law in the Congress that would have the effect of doing the same thing. I just -- I think that racial profiling is a serious problem. I remember when the stories first came out about the stops in New Jersey by the highway patrol there. And I know it's been going on a long time. In some ways this is just a new label for something that has been going on for years. But I have to confess that it was the first time that I really focused on it in a new way. And I was surprised at the extent of it. And I think we've now got so many examples around the country that we really have to find ways to end this. Imagine what it -- what it is like for someone to be singled out unfairly, unjustly, and feel the unfair force of law simply because of race or ethnicity. Now, that runs counter to what the United States of America is all about at our core. And it's not an easy problem to solve. But if I am entrusted with the presidency, it will be the first Civil Rights Act of the 21st century. BUSH: Yeah, I can't imagine what it would be like to be singled out because of race and stopped and harassed. That's just flat wrong, and that's not what America is all about. And so we ought to do everything we can to end racial profiling. One of my concerns, though, is I don't want to federalize the local police forces. I want to -- obviously in the egregious cases we need to enforce civil rights law, but we need to make sure that internal affairs decisions at the local level do their job and be given a chance to do their job. I believe in local control of governments, and obviously if they don't there needs to be a consequence at the federal level. But it's very important that we not overstep our bounds and I think most people -- most police officers are good, dedicated, honorable citizens who are doing their job, putting their lives at risk who aren't bigoted or aren't prejudiced. I don't think they ought to be held guilty. But I do think we need to find out where racial profiling occurs and do something about it and say to the local folks, get it done. And if you can't, there will be a federal consequence. MODERATOR: And that could be a federal law? BUSH: Yeah. MODERATOR: And you would agree? GORE: I would agree. And I also agree that most police officers, of course, are doing a good job and hate this practice also. I talked to an African-American police officer in Springfield, Massachusetts not long ago who raised this question and said that in his opinion one of the biggest solutions is in the training. And not only the training in police procedures, but human relations. And I think that racial profiling is part of a larger issue of how we deal with race in America. And as for singling people out because of race, you know, James Byrd was singled out because of his race in Texas. And other Americans have been singled out because of their race or ethnicity. And that's why I think we can embody our values by passing a hate crimes law. I think these crimes are different. I think they're different because they're based on prejudice and hatred, which gives rise to crimes that have not just a single victim, but they're intended to stigmatize and dehumanize a whole group of people. MODERATOR: You have a different view of that. BUSH: No, I don't, really. MODERATOR: On hate crimes laws? BUSH: No. We've got one in Texas. And guess what? The three men who murdered James Byrd, guess what's going to happen to them? They're going to be put to death. A jury found them guilty. It's going to be hard to punish them any worse after they get put to death. And it's the right cause. It's the right decision. Secondly, there is other forms of racial profiling that goes on in America. Arab-Americans are racially profiled in what is called secret evidence. People are stopped, and we have to do something about that. My friend, Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan, is pushing a law to make sure that Arab-Americans are treated with respect. So racial profiling isn't just an issue at local police forces. It's an issue throughout our society. And as we become a diverse society, we're going to have to deal with it more and more. I believe, though -- I believe, as sure as I'm sitting here, that most Americans really care. They're tolerant people. They're good, tolerant people. It's the very few that create most of the crises, and we just have to find them and deal with them. MODERATOR: What -- if you become president, Governor, are there other areas, racial problem areas, that you would deal with as president involving discrimination? Like you said, Arab-Americans, but also Hispanics, Asians, as well as Blacks in this country. BUSH: Let me tell you where the biggest discrimination comes. In public education when we just move children through the schools. My friend, Phyllis Hunter, is here. She had one of the greatest lines of all lines. She said, reading is the new civil right. She's right. And to make sure our society is as hopeful as it possibly can be, every single child in America must be educated. I mean every child. It starts with making sure every child learns to read. K-2 diagnostic testing so we know whether or not there's a deficiency. Curriculum that works and phonics needs to be an integral part of our reading curriculum. Intensive reading laboratories, teacher retraining. I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children. We can do better in our public schools. We can close an achievement gap, and it starts with making sure we have strong accountability, Jim. One of the cornerstones of reform, and good reform, is to measure. Because when you measure you can ask the question, do they know? Is anybody being profiled? Is anybody being discriminated against? It becomes a tool, a corrective tool. And I believe the federal government must say that if you receive any money, any money from the federal government for disadvantaged children, for example, you must show us whether or not the children are learning. And if they are, fine. And if they're not, there has to be a consequence. And so to make sure we end up getting rid of basic structural prejudice is education. There is nothing more prejudiced than not educating a child. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, what would be on your racial discrimination elimination list as president? GORE: Well, I think we need tough enforcement of the civil rights laws. I think we still need affirmative action. I would pass a hate crimes law, as I said, and I guess I had misunderstood the governor's previous position. The Byrd family may have a misunderstanding of it in Texas also. But I would like to shift, if I could, to the big issue of education. MODERATOR: Hold on one second. What is the misunderstanding? Let's clear this up. GORE: Well, I had thought that there was a controversy at the end of the legislative session where the hate crimes law in Texas was -- failed, and that the Byrd family, among others, asked you to support it, Governor, and it died in committee for lack of support. Am I wrong about that? BUSH: Well, you don't realize we have a hate crimes statute? We do. GORE: I'm talking about the one that was proposed to deal -- BUSH: No -- well, what the Vice President must not understand is we've got a hate crimes bill in Texas. And secondly, the people that murdered Mr. Byrd got the ultimate punishment. The death penalty. MODERATOR: They were prosecuted under the murder laws, were they not, in Texas? BUSH: In this case when you murder somebody it's hate, Jim. The crime is hate. And they got the ultimate punishment. I'm not exactly sure how you enhance the penalty any more than the death penalty. We happen to have a statute on the books that's a hate crimes statute in Texas. GORE: May I respond? MODERATOR: Sure. GORE: I don't want to jump in. I may have been misled by all the news reports about this matter, because the law that was proposed in Texas that had the support of the Byrd family and a whole lot of people in Texas did, in fact, die in committee. There may be some other statute that was already on the books, but certainly the advocates of the hate crimes law felt that a tough new law was needed. And it's important, Jim, not only -- not just because of Texas, but because this mirrors the national controversy. There is pending now in the Congress a national hate crimes law because of James Byrd, because of Matthew Shepard, who was crucified on a split rail fence by bigots, and because of others. And that law has died in committee also because of the same kind of opposition. MODERATOR: And you would support that bill. GORE: Absolutely. MODERATOR: Would you support a national hate crimes law? BUSH: I would support the Orrin Hatch version of it, not the Senator Kennedy version. But let me say to you, Mr. Vice President, we're happy with our laws on our books. That bill did -- there was another bill that did die in committee. But I want to repeat, if you have a state that fully supports the law like we do in Texas, we're going to go after all crime. And we're going to make sure people get punished for the crime. And in this case we can't enhance the penalty any more than putting those three thugs to deaths. And that's what's gonna happen in the State of Texas. MODERATOR: New subject, new question. Another vice presidential debate follow-up. Governor, both Senator Lieberman and Secretary Cheney said they were sympathetically rethinking their views on same sex relationships. What's your position on that? BUSH: I'm not for gay marriage. I think marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman. And I appreciated the way the administration signed the Defense of Marriage Act. I presume the Vice President supported it when the President signed that bill and supports it now. But I think marriage is a sacred institution. I'm going to be respectful for people who may disagree with me. I've had a record of doing so in the State of Texas. I've been a person that had been called a uniter, not a divider, because I accept other people's points of view. But I feel strongly that marriage should be between a man and a woman. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore? GORE: I agree with that, and I did support that law. But I think that we should find a way to allow some kind of civic unions, and I basically agree with Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman. And I think the three of us have one view and the Governor has another view. MODERATOR: Is that right? BUSH: I'm not sure what kind of view he's describing to me. I can just tell you, I'm a person who respects other people. I respect their -- I respect -- on the one hand he says he agrees with me and then he says he doesn't. I'm not sure where he's coming from. But I will be a tolerant person. I've been a tolerant person all my life. I just happen to believe strongly that marriage is between a man and a woman. MODERATOR: Do you believe in general terms that gays and lesbians should have the same rights as other Americans? BUSH: Yes. I don't think they ought to have special rights, but I think they ought to have the same rights. GORE: Well, there's a law pending called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. I strongly support it. What it says is that gays and lesbians can't be fired from their job because they're gay or lesbian. And it would be a federal law preventing that. Now, I wonder if the -- it's been blocked by the opponents in the majority in the Congress. I wonder if the Governor who lend his support to that law. MODERATOR: Governor? BUSH: The question -- MODERATOR: Well, but it's a logical response. BUSH: Well, I have no idea. I mean, he can throw out all kinds -- I don't know the particulars of this law. I will tell you I'm the kind of person, I don't hire or fire somebody based upon their sexual orientation. As a matter of fact, I would like to take the issue a little further. I don't really think it's any of my -- you know, any of my concerns what -- how you conduct your sex life. And I think that's a private matter. And I think that's the way it ought to be. But I'm going to be respectful for people, I'll tolerate people, and I support equal rights but not special rights for people. MODERATOR: Special rights, how does that affect gays and lesbians? BUSH: Well, it would be if they're given special protective status. That doesn't mean we shouldn't fully enforce laws and fully protect people and fully honor people, which I will do as the President of the United States. MODERATOR: New subject, new question, Vice President Gore. How do you see the connection between controlling gun sales in this country and the incidence of death by accidental or intentional use of guns? GORE: Jim, I hope that we can come back to the subject of education because the governor made an extensive statement on it and I have a very different view than the one he expressed. But that having been said, I believe that -- well, first of all, let me say that the governor and I agree on some things where this subject is concerned. I will not do anything to affect the rights of hunters or sportsmen. I think that homeowners have to be respected and their right to have a gun if they wish to. The problem I see is that there are too many guns getting into the hands of children, and criminals, and people who, for whatever reason, some kind of history of stalking or domestic abuse really should not be able to get guns. I think these assault weapons are a problem. So I favor closing the gun show loophole. In fact, I cast the tie-breaking vote to close it, but then the majority in the House of Representatives went the other way. That's still pending. If we could get agreement on that, maybe they could pass that in the final days of this Congress. I think we ought to restore the three-day waiting period under the Brady Law. I think we should toughen the enforcement of gun laws so that the ones that are already on the books can be enforced much more effectively. Some of the restrictions that have been placed by the Congress in the last couple of years. I think -- in the last few years I think have been unfortunate. I think that we ought to make all schools gun free. Have a gun-free zone around every school in this country. I think that measures like these are important. Child safety trigger locks on a mandatory basis, and others. MODERATOR: Governor? BUSH: Well, it starts with enforcing law. When you say loud and clear to somebody if you're going to carry a gun illegally, we're going to arrest you. If you're going to sell a gun illegally, you need to be arrested. If you commit a crime with a gun, there needs to be absolute certainty in the law. And that means that the local law enforcement officials need help at the federal level. Programs like Project Exile where the federal government intensifies arresting people who illegally use guns. And we haven't done a very good job of that at the federal level recently. And I'm going to make it a priority. Secondly, I don't think we ought to be selling guns to people who shouldn't have them. That's why I support instant background checks at gun shows. One of the reasons we have an instant background check is so that we instantly know whether or not somebody should have a gun or not. In Texas I tried to do something innovative. There's a lot of talk about trigger locks being on guns sold in the future. I support that. But I said if you want a trigger lock to make your gun safe, come and get one for free. So we're distributing in our State of Texas for free. I think we ought to raise the age at which a juvenile can carry a handgun from 18 to 21. I disagree with the vice president on this issue. He is for registration of guns. I think the only people that are going to show up to register or get a license -- I guess licensing like a driver's license for a gun, the only people that are going to show up are law-abiding citizens. The criminal is not going to show up and say hey, give me my I.D. card. It's the law-abiding citizens who will do that. An I don't think that is going to be an effective tool to make the -- keep our society safe. MODERATOR: All right. So on guns, somebody wants to cast a vote based on your differences, where are the differences? GORE: Well, I'm not for registration. I am for licensing by states of new handgun purchases. MODERATOR: What's that mean? GORE: A photo license I.D. like a driver's license for new handguns and, you know, the Los Angeles -- MODERATOR: Excuse me, you would have to get the license -- a photo I.D. to go in and before you could buy the gun? GORE: Correct. MODERATOR: All right. Who would issue the -- GORE: The state. The state. I think states should do that for new handguns, because too many criminals are getting guns. There was a recent investigation of the number in Texas who got -- who were given concealed weapons permits in spite of the fact that they had records. And the "Los Angeles Times" spent a lot of ink going into that. But I am not for doing anything that would affect hunters or sportsmen, rifles, shotguns, existing handguns. I do think that sensible gun safety measures are warranted now. Look, this is the year -- this is in the aftermath of Columbine, and Paducah, and all the places in our country where the nation has been shocked by these weapons in the hands of the wrong people. The woman who bought the guns for the two boys who did that killing at Columbine said that if she had had to give her name and fill out a form there, she would not have bought those guns. That conceivably could have prevented that tragedy. MODERATOR: Back to the question about the differences on gun control. What are they, Governor, from your point of view, between you and the Vice President? BUSH: Well, I'm not for photo licensing. Let me say something about Columbine. Listen, we've got gun laws. He says we ought to have gun-free schools. Everybody believes that. I'm sure every state in the union has got them. You can't carry a gun into a school. And there ought to be a consequence when you do carry a gun into a school. But Columbine spoke to a larger issue. It's really a matter of culture. It's a culture that somewhere along the line we've begun to disrespect life. Where a child can walk in and have their heart turned dark as a result of being on the Internet and walk in and decide to take somebody else's life? So gun laws are important, no question about it, but so is loving children, and character education classes, and faith-based programs being a part of after-school programs. Some desperate child needs to have somebody put their arm around them and say, we love you. So there's a -- this is a society that -- of ours that's got to do a better job of teaching children right from wrong. And we can enforce law. But there seems to be a lot of preoccupation on -- not certainly only in this debate, but just in general on law. But there's a larger law. Love your neighbor like you would like to be loved yourself. And that's where our society must head if we're going to be a peaceful and prosperous society. GORE: I also believe in the Golden Rule. And I agree with a lot of the other things that the governor has said. We do have a serious problem in our culture. Tipper and I have worked on the problem of violence in entertainment aimed at children. She's worked on it longer than I have. But I feel very strongly about that. And if I'm elected president, I will do something about that. But I think that we -- I think we have to start with better parenting. But I don't think that we can ignore the role played by guns. I mean, the fact is that there -- even though no state wants them, there are guns in some schools. And the reason it's so difficult for schools to control that is because in recent years there has been a flood of cheap handguns that are so widely available that kids are finding ways to get ahold of them. And I think that if you look at the situation as it exists here in the United States compared to any other country in the world, it seems to me pretty obvious that while we respect the rights of hunters and sportsmen, we do need some common sense gun safety steps to stem this flood of guns that are getting into the wrong hands. BUSH: Yeah, no question about that, but there also needs to be strong enforcement of the law. Some kid who feels like -- doesn't matter where the gun comes from, it could be a cheap gun, expensive gun. What matters is something in this person's head says there is not going to be a consequence. So in my state we toughen up the juvenile justice laws. We added beds. We're tough. We believe in tough love. We say, if you get caught carrying a gun, you're automatically detained. And that's what needs to happen. We've got laws. If laws need to be strengthened, like instant background checks, that's important. MODERATOR: New question. As I was saying. Both of you -- Governor, both of you have talked much about Medicare and health care for seniors. What about the more than 40 million younger Americans who do not have health insurance right now? What would you do about that? BUSH: Well, I've got a plan to do something about that. It's to make health care affordable and available this way. First, there's some who should be buying health care who choose not to. There's some -- MODERATOR: Some of the 40 million. BUSH: Some of the healthy folks, healthy young kids say I'll never get sick, therefore I don't need health care right now. For those what I think we need to do is to develop an investment-type vehicle that would be an incentive for them to invest, like medical savings accounts with rollover capacity. In other words, you say to a youngster, it will be in your financial interest to start saving for future illness, but for the working folks that do want to have health care that can't afford it, a couple of things we need to do. One, we need more community health centers. I've developed -- put out money in my budget to expand community health centers all around the country. These are places where people can get primary care. Secondly -- and they're good. They're very important parts of the safety net of health care. Secondly, that you get a $2,000 rebate from the government if you're a family of $30,000 or less -- it scales down as you get higher -- that you can use to purchase health care in the private markets. It will be a huge down payment for a pretty darn good system. If you allow -- also allow -- convince states to -- allow states to allow the mother to match some of the children's health insurance money with it, the pool purchasing power. And to make health care more affordable, allow business associations like the National Federal of Independent Business or the Chamber of Commerce or the National Restaurant Association to write association plans across jurisdictional lines so that small businesses have got the capacity to have national pooling to drive the cost of insurance down. I think that's the very best way to go. It empowers people, it trusts people, it makes -- and it's a practical way to encourage people to purchase health care insurance. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore? GORE: It's one of my top priorities, Jim, to give every single child in the United States affordable health care within the next four years. I would like to see eventually in this country some form of universal health care, but I'm not for a government-run system. In fact, I'm for shrinking the size of government. I want a smaller and smarter government. I have been in charge of this reinventing government streamlining project that's reduced the size of government by more than 300,000 people in the last several years. And the budget plan that I've put out, according to the "Los Angeles Times" again, the way these things are typically measured as a percentage of the GDP, will bring government spending down to the lowest level in 50 years. So I want to proceed carefully to cover more people. But I think we should start by greatly expanding the so-called child health insurance or CHIP program to give health insurance to every single child in this country. I think it's intolerable that we have so many millions of children without any health insurance. So it's one of my top priorities. Now, I know that we have some disagreements on this. And I'm sorry to tell you that, you know, there is a record here. And Texas ranks 49th out of the 50 states in health care -- in children with health care. 49th for women with health care, and 50th for families with health care. So it is a priority for me. I guarantee you. I'm not aware of any program -- well, I'll just leave it at that. I think it ought to be a top priority. MODERATOR: Governor, did the -- are the vice president's figures correct about Texas? BUSH: First of all, let me say he's not for a government-run health care system? I thought that's exactly what he and Mrs. Clinton and them fought for in 1993 was a government-run health care system. It was fortunately stopped in its tracks. Secondly, we spend $4.7 billion a year on the uninsured in the State of Texas. Our rate of uninsured, the percentage of uninsured in Texas has gone down, while the percentage of uninsured in America has gone up. Our CHIPS program got a late start because our government meets only four months out of every two years, Mr. Vice President. It may come as a shock for somebody who has been in Washington for so long. But actually limited government can work in the second largest state in the union. And therefore Congress passes the bill after our session in 1997 ended, we passed an enabling legislation in 1999. We've signed up over 110,000 children to the CHIPS program. For comparable states our size, we're signing them up as fast as any other state. You can quote all the numbers you want, but I'm telling you we care about our people in Texas. We spent a lot of money to make sure people get health care in the State of Texas, and we're doing a better job than they are at the national level for reducing uninsured. MODERATOR: Is he right? GORE: Well, I don't know about all these percentages that he throws out, but I do know that -- I speculate that the reason why he didn't answer your question directly as to whether my numbers were right, the facts were right about Texas ranking dead last in families with health insurance and 49th out of 50 for both children and women, is because those facts are correct. And as for why it happened, I'm no expert on the Texas procedures, but what my friends there tell me is that the governor opposed a measure put forward by Democrats in the legislature to expand the number of children that would be covered. And instead directed the money toward a tax cut, a significant part of which went to wealthy interests. He declared the need for a new tax cut for the oil companies in Texas an emergency need, and so the money was taken away from the CHIP program. There's -- you don't have to take my word for this. There is now a federal judge's opinion about the current management of this program ordering the State of Texas to do -- you should read that judge's language about this. I believe there are 1.4 million children in Texas who do not have health insurance. 600,000 of whom, and maybe some of those have since gotten it, but as of a year ago 600,000 of them were actually eligible for it but they couldn't sign up for it because of the barriers that they had set up. MODERATOR: Let's let the governor respond to that. Are those numbers correct? Are his charges correct? BUSH: If he's trying to allege that I'm a hard-hearted person and I don't care about children, he's absolutely wrong. We've spent $4.7 billion a year in the State of Texas for uninsured people. And they get health care. Now, it's not the most efficient way to get people health care. But I want to remind you, the number of uninsured in America during their watch has increased. He can make any excuse he wants, but the facts are that we're reducing the number of uninsured percentage of our population. And as the percentage of the population is increasing nationally, somehow the allegation that we don't care and we're going to give money for this interest or that interest and not for children in the State of Texas is totally absurd. Let me just tell you who the jury is. The people of Texas. There's only been one governor ever elected to back-to-back four-year terms, and that was me. And I was able to do so with a lot of Democrat votes, nearly 50% of the Hispanic vote, about 27% of the African-American vote, because people know I'm a conservative person and a compassionate person. So he can throw all the kinds of numbers around. I'm just telling you our state comes together to do what is right. We come together both Republicans and Democrats. MODERATOR: Let me put that directly to you, Vice President Gore. The reason you brought this up, is it -- are you suggesting that those numbers and that record will reflect the way Governor Bush will operate in this area of health insurance as president? GORE: Yes, yes. But it's not a statement about his heart. I don't claim to know his heart. I think he's a good person. I make no allegations about that. I believe him when he says that he has a good heart. I know enough about your story to admire a lot of the things that you have done as a person. But I think it's about his priorities. And let me tell you exactly why I think that the choice he made to give a tax cut for the oil companies and others before addressing this -- I mean, if you were the governor of a state that was dead last in health care for families, and all of a sudden you found yourself with the biggest surplus your state had ever had in its history, wouldn't you want to maybe use some of it to climb from 50th to, say, 45 or 40 or something or maybe better? I would. Now, but here is why it's directly relevant, Jim. Because by his own budget numbers, his proposals for spending on tax cuts for the wealthiest of the wealthy are more than the new spending proposals that he has made for health care and education and national defense all combined. According to his own numbers. So it's not a question of his heart, as far as I know. It's a question of priorities and values. See, you know -- MODERATOR: Let me ask -- BUSH: First of all, that's simply not true what he just said, of course. And secondly, I repeat to you -- MODERATOR: What is not true, Governor? BUSH: That we spent -- the top 1% receive 223 as opposed to 445 billion in new spending. The top -- let's talk about my tax plan. The top 1% will pay one-third of all the federal income taxes. And in return, get one-fifth of the benefits, because most of the tax reductions go to the people at the bottom end of the economic ladder. That stands in stark contrast, by the way, to a man who is going to leave 50 million -- 50 million Americans out of tax relief. We just have a different point of view. It's a totally different point of view. He believes only the right people ought to get tax relief. I believe everybody who pays taxes ought to get tax relief. Let me go back to Texas, for example, for a minute. We pay 4.7 billion. I can't emphasize to you how much. I signed a bill that puts CHIPS in place. The bill finally came out at the end of the 1999 session. We're working hard to sign up children. We're doing it faster than any other state our size, comparable state. We're making really good progress. And our state cares a lot about our children. My priority is going to be the health of our citizens. These folks have had eight years to get something done in Washington, D.C. on the uninsured. They have not done it. They've had eight years to get something done on Medicare. And they have not got it done. And my case to the American people is, if you're happy with inactivity, stay with the horse. The horse is up there now. But if you want change, you need to get somebody that knows how to bring Republicans and Democrats together to get positive things done for American. MODERATOR: New question, new subject. Vice President Gore, on the environment. In your 1992 book you said, quote, "We must make the rescue of our environment the central organizing principle for civilization and there must be a wrenching transformation to save the planet." Do you still feel that way? GORE: I do. I think that in this 21st century we will soon see the consequences of what's called global warming. There was a study just a few weeks ago suggesting that in summertime the north polar ice cap will be completely gone in 50 years. Already people see the strange weather conditions that the old timers say they've never seen before in their lifetimes. And what's happening is the level of pollution is increasing significantly. Now, here is the good news, Jim. If we take the leadership role and build the new technologies, like the new kinds of cars and trucks that Detroit is itching to build, then we can create millions of good new jobs by being first into the market with these new kinds of cars and trucks and other kinds of technologies. You know the Japanese are breathing down our necks on this. They're moving very rapidly because they know that it is a fast-growing world market. Some of these other countries, particularly in the developing world, their pollution is much worse than anywhere else and their people want higher standards of living. And so they're looking for ways to satisfy their desire for a better life and still reduce pollution at the same time. I think that holding onto the old ways and the old argument that the environment and the economy are in conflict is really outdated. We have to be bold. We have to provide leadership. Now it's true that we disagree on this. The governor said that he doesn't think this problem is necessarily caused by people. He's for letting the oil companies into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Houston has just become the smoggiest city in the country. And Texas is number one in industrial pollution. We have a very different outlook. And I'll tell you this, I will fight for a clean environment in ways that strengthen our economy. MODERATOR: Governor? BUSH: Well, let me start with Texas. We are a big industrial state. We reduced our industrial waste by 11%. We cleaned up more brown fields than any other administration in my state's history, 450 of them. Our water is cleaner now. MODERATOR: Explain what a brown field is to those who don't follow this. BUSH: A brown field is an abandoned industrial site that just sits idle in some of our urban centers. And people are willing to invest capital in the brown fields don't want to do so for fear of lawsuit. I think we ought to have federal liability protection, depending upon whether or not standards have been met. The book you mentioned that Vice President Gore wrote, he also called for taxing -- big energy taxes in order to clean up the environment. And now that the energy prices are high, I guess he's not advocating those big energy taxes right now. I believe we ought to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund to -- with half the money going to states so states can make the right decisions for environmental quality. I think we need to have clean coal technologies. I propose $2 billion worth. By the way, I just found out the other day an interesting fact, that there is a national petroleum reserve right next to -- in Prudhoe Bay that your administration opened up for exploration in that pristine area. And it was a smart move because there's gas reserves up there. We need gas pipelines to bring the gas down. Gas is a clean fuel that we can burn to -- we need to make sure that if we decontrol our plants that there's mandatory -- that the plants must conform to clean air standards, the grandfathered plants, that's what we did in Texas. No excuses. You must conform. In other words, there are practical things we can do. But it starts with working in a collaborative effort with states and local folks. If you own the land, every day is Earth Day. People care a lot about their land and care about their environment. Not all wisdom is in Washington, D.C. on this issue. MODERATOR: Where do you see the basic difference in very simple terms in two or three sentences between you and the governor on the environment? If a voter wants to make a choice, what is it? GORE: I'm really strongly committed to clean water and clean air, and cleaning up the new kinds of challenges like global warming. He is right that I'm not in favor of energy taxes. I am in favor of tax cuts to encourage and give incentives for the quicker development of these new kinds of technologies. And let me say again, Detroit is rearing to go on that. We differ on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as I have said. We differ on whether or not pollution controls ought to be voluntary. I don't think you can -- I don't think you can get results that way. We differ on the kinds of appointments that we would make. MODERATOR: Would you say it's a fundamental difference? GORE: I think it's a fundamental difference. Let me give you an example. MODERATOR: Hold on one second. GORE: Okay, sure. MODERATOR: We've talked about supply. I just want to know for somebody -- we're getting close to the end of our time here. If somebody wanted to vote on the environment, how would you draw the differences, Governor? BUSH: Well, I don't believe in command and control out of Washington, D.C. I believe Washington ought to set standards, but again I think we ought to be collaborative at the local levels and I think we ought to work with people at the local levels. And by the way, I just want to make sure -- I can't let him just say something and not correct it. The electric decontrol bill that I fought for and signed in Texas has mandatory emission standards, Mr. Vice President. That's what we ought to do at the federal level when it comes to grandfathered plants for utilities. I think there's a difference. I think, for example, take -- when they took 40 million acres of land out of circulation without consulting local officials, I thought that was -- MODERATOR: That was out in the west? BUSH: Out in the west, yeah. And so -- on the logging issue. That's not the way I would have done it. Perhaps some of that land needs to be set aside. But I certainly would have consulted with governors and elected officials before I would have acted unilaterally. MODERATOR: Would you believe the federal government still has some new rules and new regulations and new laws to pass in the environmental area or do you think -- BUSH: Sure, absolutely, so long as they're based upon science and they're reasonable. So long as people have input. MODERATOR: What about global warming? BUSH: I think it's an issue that we need to take very seriously. But I don't think we know the solution to global warming yet. And I don't think we've got all the facts before we make decisions. I tell you one thing I'm not going to do is I'm not going to let the United States carry the burden for cleaning up the world's air. Like Kyoto Treaty would have done. China and India were exempted from that treaty. I think we need to be more even-handed, as evidently 99 senators -- I think it was 99 senators supported that position. MODERATOR: Global warming, the Senate did turn it down. I think -- BUSH: 99 to nothing. GORE: Well, that vote wasn't exactly -- a lot of the supporters of the Kyoto Treaty actually ended up voting for that because the way it was worded. But there's no doubt there's a lot of opposition to it in the Senate. I'm not for command and control techniques either. I'm for working with the groups, not just with industry but also with the citizen groups and local communities to control sprawl in ways that the local communities themselves come up with. But I disagree that we don't know the cause of global warming. I think that we do. It's pollution, carbon dioxide, and other chemicals that are even more potent, but in smaller quantities, that cause this. Look, the world's temperature is going up, weather patterns are changing, storms are getting more violent and unpredictable. What are we going to tell our children? I'm a grandfather now. I want to be able to tell my grandson when I'm in my later years that I didn't turn away from the evidence that showed that we were doing some serious harm. In my faith tradition, it is -- it's written in the book of Matthew, "Where your heart is, there is your treasure also." And I believe that -- that we ought to recognize the value to our children and grandchildren of taking steps that preserve the environment in a way that's good for them. BUSH: Yeah, I agree. I just -- I think there has been -- some of the scientists, I believe, Mr. Vice President, haven't they been changing their opinion a little bit on global warming? A profound scientist recently made a different -- MODERATOR: Both of you have now violated -- excuse me. Both of you have now violated your own rules. Hold that thought. GORE: I've been trying so hard not to. MODERATOR: I know, I know. But under your alls rules you are not allowed to ask each other a question. I let you do it a moment ago. BUSH: Twice. MODERATOR: Now you just -- twice, sorry. (LAUGHTER) GORE: That's an interruption, by the way. MODERATOR: That's an interruption, okay. But anyhow, you just did it so now -- BUSH: I'm sorry. I apologize, Mr. Vice President. MODERATOR: You aren't allowed to do that either, see? (LAUGHTER) I'm sorry, go ahead and finish your thought. People care about these things I've found out. BUSH: Of course they care about them. Oh, you mean the rules. MODERATOR: Yeah, right, exactly right. Go ahead. BUSH: What the heck. I -- of course there's a lot -- look, global warming needs to be taken very seriously, and I take it seriously. But science, there's a lot -- there's differing opinions. And before we react, I think it's best to have the full accounting, full understanding of what's taking place. And I think to answer your question, I think both of us care a lot about the environment. We may have different approaches. We may have different approaches in terms of how we deal with local folks. I just cited an example of the administration just unilaterally acting without any input. And I remember you gave a very good answer to New Hampshire about the White Mountains, about how it was important to keep that collaborative effort in place. I feel very strongly the same place. It certainly wasn't the attitude that took place out west, however. MODERATOR: New question. Last question. For you, Governor. And this flows somewhat out of the Boston debate. You, your running mate, your campaign officials have charged that Vice President Gore exaggerates, embellishes and stretches the facts, etcetera. Are you -- do you believe these are serious issues? This is a serious issue that the voters should use in deciding which one of you two men to vote for on November 7? BUSH: Well, we all make mistakes. I've been known to mangle a syllable or two myself, you know, if you know what I mean. I think credibility is important. It is going to be important for the president to be credible with Congress, important for the president to be credible with foreign nations. And yes, I think it's something that people need to consider. This isn't something new. I read a report, or a memo, from somebody in his 1988 campaign -- I forgot the fellow's name -- warning then Senator Gore to be careful about exaggerating claims. I thought during his debate with Senator Bradley saying he authored the EITC when it didn't happen. I mention the last debate -- MODERATOR: EITC? BUSH: The Earned Income Tax Credit, sorry. MODERATOR: That's all right. BUSH: A lot of initials from a guy who's not from Washington, isn't it? Anyway, he co-sponsored McCain-Feingold, and yet he didn't. And so I think this is an issue. I found it to be an issue in trying to defend my tax relief package. I thought there was some exaggerations about the numbers. But the people are going to have to make up their mind on this issue. And I am going to continue to defend my record and defend my propositions against what I think are exaggerations. Exaggerations like, for example, only 5% of seniors receive benefits under my Medicare reform package. That's what he said the other day, and that's simply not the case. And I have every right in the world to defend my record and positions. That's what debates are about and that's what campaigns are about. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore? GORE: I got some of the details wrong last week in some of the examples that I used, Jim, and I'm sorry about that. And I'm going to try to do better. One of the reasons I regret it is that getting a detail wrong interfered several times with the point that I was trying to make. However many days that young girl in Florida stood in her classroom, however long, even if it was only one day, doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of overcrowded classrooms in America and we need to do something about that. There are seniors who pay more for their prescriptions than a lot of other people, more than their pets, sometimes. More sometimes than people in foreign countries. And we need to do something about that. Not with the measure that leaves the majority of them without any real basic help until the next president's term of four years is over. But right away. And that means doing it under the Medicare program. I can't promise that I will never get another detail wrong. I can promise you that I will try not to, and hard. But I will promise you this with all the confidence in my heart and in the world, that I will do my best if I'm elected president, I'll work my heart out to get the big things right for the American people. MODERATOR: Does that resolve the issue, Governor? BUSH: That's going to be up to the people, isn't it? MODERATOR: Does it resolve it for you? BUSH: Depends on what he says in the future in the campaign. MODERATOR: Your folks are saying some awful things. BUSH: I hope they're not awful things. I think they may be using the man's own words. MODERATOR: Well, what I mean is calling him a serial exaggerator -- BUSH: I don't believe I've used those words. MODERATOR: No, but your campaign ads. BUSH: Maybe they have. MODERATOR: And your campaign officials have. And your campaign officials, Mr. Vice President, are now calling the governor a bumbler. BUSH: Wait a minute. (LAUGHTER) MODERATOR: I mean, my point is, should this -- is this -- GORE: I don't use language like that and I don't think that we should. MODERATOR: It's in your commercial. GORE: I understand. The -- I haven't seen that, in my commercials? BUSH: You haven't seen the commercial? MODERATOR: Your -- GORE: I think that what -- I think the point of that is that anybody would have a hard time trying to make a tax cut plan that is so large, that would put us into such big deficits, that gives almost half the benefits to the wealthiest of the wealthy. I think anybody would have a hard time explaining that clearly in a way that makes sense to the average person. BUSH: That's the kind of exaggeration I was just talking about. (LAUGHTER) GORE: Well, I wasn't the one having trouble explaining it. MODERATOR: Gentlemen, it's time to go to the closing statements. And Vice President Gore, you have two minutes. GORE: Jim, one of the issues that I would like to close with in my statement is education, because it's an example of the overall approach that I think is important. This race is about values, it's about change, it's about giving choices to the American people. And education is my number one priority, because I think that it's the most important big major change that we can bring in our country. I agree with Governor Bush that we should have new accountability, testing of students. I think that we should require states to test all students, test schools and school districts, and I think that we should go further and require teacher testing for new teachers also. The difference is that while my plan starts with new accountability and maintains local control, it doesn't stop there. Because I want to give new choices to parents. To send their kids to college with a $10,000 tax deduction for college tuition per child per year. I want to reduce the size of the classrooms in this country. For one basic reason, so that students can get more one-on-one time with teachers. And the way to do that is first to recruit more teachers. I've a plan in my budget to recruit 100,000 new, highly qualified teachers and to help local school districts build new schools. I think that we have to put more emphasis on early learning and pre-school. Now, here is how that connects with all the rest of what we've been talking about. If you have -- if you squander the surplus on a huge tax cut that goes mostly to those at the top, then you can't make education the top priority. If the tax cut is your number one, two, three and four priority, you can't do education. You can't do both. You have to choose. I choose education and health care, the environment and retirement security, and I ask for your support. MODERATOR: Governor Bush, two minutes. BUSH: Jim, thank you very much. Mr. Vice President, thank you very much, and I would like to thank the folks here at Wake Forest, and I want to thank you all for listening. I'm running to get some things done for America. There's too many issues left unresolved. There's been too much finger pointing and too much name calling in Washington, D.C. I would like to unite this country to get an agenda done that will speak to the hopes and aspirations of the future. I want to have an education system that sets high standards, local control of schools and strong accountability. No child should be left behind in America. I want to make sure we rebuild our military to keep the peace. I worry about morale in today's military. The warning signs are clear. It is time to have a new commander in chief who will rebuild the military, pay our men and women more, make sure they're housed better and have a focused mission for our military. Once and for all, I want to do something about Medicare. This issue has been too long on the table because it's been a political issue. It's time to bring folks together to say that all seniors will get prescription drug coverage. I want to do something about Social Security. It's an important priority, because now is the time to act and we're going to say to our seniors, our promises we've made to you will be promises kept. But younger workers, in order to make sure the system exists tomorrow, younger workers ought to be able to take some of your own money and invest it in safe securities to get a better rate of return on that money. And finally, I do believe in tax relief. I believe we can set our priorities. I don't believe, like the vice president does, in huge government. I believe in limited government. By having a limited government and a focused government, we can send some of the money back to the people who pay the bills. I want to have tax relief for all people who pay the bills in America, because I think you can spend your money more wisely than the federal government can. Thank you for listening. I'm asking for your vote, and God bless. MODERATOR: And we will return next Tuesday night, October 17th, from Washington University in St. Louis for the third and final debate. Thank you, Vice President Gore, Governor Bush. See you next week. For now, from Winston-Salem, I'm Jim Lehrer, thank you and good night. Source: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/presidential-debate-winston-salem-north-carolina-0

October 05, 2000   MODERATOR: From Centre College in historic Danville, Kentucky, good evening, and welcome to this year's only vice presidential debate sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. I'm Bernard Shaw, moderator. Tonight we come to you from the hall in the Northern Center for the Arts on the campus of Centre College. Thank you to President John Rausch, the faculty, students and community leaders state-wide, we thank you for hosting this debate. The candidates are the Republican nominee, former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney of Wyoming, and the Democratic nominee, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. The Commission, these candidates and their campaign staffs have agreed to the following rules. A candidate shall have two minutes to respond to the moderator's question. The other candidate shall have two minutes to comment on the question or the first candidate's answer. When I exercise the moderator's discretion of extending discussion of a question, no candidate may speak for more than two minutes at one time. This audience has been told no disruptions will be tolerated. A prior coin toss has determined that the first question will go to the Democratic candidate. Senator, few hard working Americans would base their well-being on bonuses they hope to get five or ten years from now. Why do you, and you, Secretary Cheney, predict surpluses you cannot possibly guarantee to pay for your proposed programs? LIEBERMAN: Before I answer that very important question, let me first thank you for moderating the debate. Let me thank the wonderful people here at Centre College and throughout Kentucky for being such gracious hosts, and let me give a special thank you to the people of Connecticut without whose support over these last 30 years I would never have had the opportunity Al Gore has given me this year. And finally let me thank my family that is here with me. My wife, Hadassah, our children, our siblings and my mom. My 85-year-old mom gave me some good advice about the debate earlier today. She said, sweetheart -- as she's prone to call me -- remember, be positive and know that I will love you no matter what you're opponent says about you. Well, Mom, as always, that was both reassuring and wise. I am going to be positive tonight. I'm not going to indulge in negative personal attacks. I'm going to talk about the issues that matter to the people of this country; education, health care, retirement security and moral values. I'm going to describe the plan that Al Gore and I have for keeping America's prosperity going and making sure that it benefits more of America's families, particularly the hard-working middle class families who have not yet fully benefitted from the good times we've had. And Bernie, I'm going to explain tonight how we're going to do all this and remain fiscally responsible. Let me get to your question. MODERATOR: You have about ten seconds. LIEBERMAN: We're not spending any more than is projected from the experts. We're setting aside $300 billion in a reserve fund. The projections the nonpartisan experts make aren't quite right. Keeping America out of debt is a way to keep interest rates down and the economy growing. MODERATOR: Secretary Cheney. CHENEY: I want to thank the people here in Danville, Kentucky, and I'm delighted to be here tonight. I want to avoid any personal attacks. I promise not to bring up your singing. (LAUGHTER) LIEBERMAN: I promise not to sing. CHENEY: Good. I think this is an extraordinarily important decision we'll make on November 7th. We're really going to choose between what I consider to be an old way of governing ourselves or a new course, a new era, if you will, of high levels of spending, high taxes, ever more intrusive bureaucracy. And Governor Bush and I want to offer that new course of action. With respect to the surplus, Bernie, we have to make some kind of forecast. We can't make 12-month decisions in this business. We're talking about the kinds of fundamental changes in programs and government that are going to affect people's lives for the next 25 or 30 years. And while it may be a little risky in some respects from an economic standpoint to try to forecast surpluses, I think we have to make some planning assumption to proceed. We care a great deal about the issues at stake here. One of the difficulties we have, frankly, for the last eight years we ignored a lot of these problems. We haven't moved aggressively on Social Security, on Medicare. There are important issues out there that need to be resolved. It's important for us to get on with that business. That's what Governor Bush and I want to do. MODERATOR: You alluded to problems. There's no magic bullet -- Secretary Cheney, in this question to you -- no magic bullets to solve the problems of public education. What is the next best solution? CHENEY: I think public education is a solution. Our desire is to find ways to reform our educational system, to return it to its former glory. I'm a product of public schools, my family, wife and daughters all went to public schools. We believe very much in the public school system. But if you look at where we are from the standpoint of the nation, recent exams. For example, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, an independent testing service, shows there's no progress on reading scores in the last eight years. Almost no progress on math. We've had a significant increase in spending for education nationwide, but it has produced almost no positive results. That's unacceptable from our standpoint. If you look at it and think about it, we now have in our most disadvantaged communities, 70% of our fourth graders can't read at the basic level of understanding. We've graduated 15 million kids from high school in the last few years who can't read at a significant level. What we want to do is to change that. We think we know how to do it. Governor Bush has done it in Texas. We want to emphasize local control. We want to insist on high standards. One of the worst things we can do is fail to establish high standards. To say we don't have the same kind of expectations from you that we have from everybody else. We want accountability. We have to test every child every year to know whether or not we're making progress with respect to achieving those goals and objectives. We think it's extraordinarily important. Probably the single most important issue in this campaign. Governor Bush has made it clear that when he's elected this will be his number one priority as a legislative measure to submit to the Congress. MODERATOR: Senator. LIEBERMAN: Al Gore and I are committed to making America's public schools the best in the world. I disagree with what my opponent has said. A lot of progress has been made in recent years. Average testing scores are up and a lot of work is being done by tens of thousands of parents, teachers and administrators all around America. There is more to be done. If you'll allow me, I want to go back to your last question. It leads to this question. I think both of us agree that leaving aside the Social Security and Medicare surpluses, there's $1.8 trillion in surplus available to spend over the next ten years. We're being fiscally responsible about it. We're taking $300 billion off the top to put in reserve fund. The rest we'll use for middle class tax cuts and invest in programs like education. There's a big difference between these two tickets. Our opponents with spend $1.6 trillion of the surplus projected on a big tax cut that Al Gore talked about the other night so effectively. We're saving money to invest in education. You cannot reform education and improve it in this country without spending some money. Al Gore and I have committed $170 billion for that purpose. To recruit 100,000 new teachers to reduce the size of classrooms. To help local school districts build new buildings so our children are not learning in crumbling classrooms. And we're not just going to stop at high school. We're going to go on and give the middle class the ability to deduct up to $10,000 a year in the cost of college tuition. Now, that is a tremendous life-saving change which will help people carry on their education and allow them to develop the kinds of skills that will help them succeed in the hi-tech economy of today. CHENEY: This is a very important issue, Bernie. Maybe we could extend on education for a moment. MODERATOR: You're asking me to invoke the moderator's discussion? CHENEY: Yes. MODERATOR: It is so granted. CHENEY: Thank you, sir. LIEBERMAN: Do I have a chance to respond? MODERATOR: The secretary will have two minutes and then you'll have two minutes. CHENEY: The question of the surplus drives a lot of what we're talking about here, Joe. If you look at our proposal, we take half of the projected surplus and set it aside for Social Security. Over $2.4 trillion. We talk roughly a fourth of it for other urgent priorities such as Medicare reform and education, several of these other key programs we want to support. And we take roughly one-fourth of it and return it in the form of a tax cut to the American taxpayer. We think it's very important to do that. It is a fundamental difference between our two approaches. If you look, frankly, by our numbers and the numbers of the Senate Budget Committee, which has totaled up all the promises that Vice President Gore has made during the course of the campaign, there's some $900 billion in spending over and above that surplus already and we still have a month to go in the campaign. The fact is that the program that we put together we think is very responsible. Suggestion that somehow all of it is going for tax cuts isn't true. Another way to look at it is over the course of the next ten years we'll collect roughly $25 trillion in revenue. We want to take about 5% of that and return that to the American taxpayer in the form of tax relief. We have the highest level of taxation now we've had since World War II. The average American family is paying about 40% in federal, state and local taxes. We think it is appropriate to return to the American people so that they can make choices themselves in how that money ought to be spent; whether on education, retirement or on paying their bills. It is their choice and prerogative. We want to give them the opportunity to make those kinds of choices for themselves and we think this is a totally reasonable approach. MODERATOR: Senator? LIEBERMAN: Let me start with the numbers. With all due respect, the Senate Budget Committee estimates that Dick Cheney has just referred to are the estimates of the partisan Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee. We're using the numbers presented by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. We start with an agreement which the surplus in the Social Security fund should be locked up and used for Social Security. That's where the agreement ends. We also agree and believe and pledge that the surplus in the Medicare trust fund should also be locked up with a sign on it says that politicians keep your hands off. Our opponents do not do that. In fact, they raid the Medicare trust fund to pay for, well, their tax cut and other programs that they can't afford because they've spent so much on the tax cut. Let me come back to the remaining $1.8 trillion that we both talked about. The numbers show that $1.6 trillion goes to the big tax cut which, as Al Gore said the other night, sends 43% to the top 1%. Worse than that, when you add on the other spending programs that our opponents have committed to, plus the cost of their plan to privatize Social Security, they're $1.1 trillion in debt. That means we go back down the road to higher interest rates, to higher unemployment, to a kind of self-tax increase on every American family. Because when interest rates go up, so, too, do the cost of mortgage payments, car payments, student loans, credit card transactions. So if we've learned anything over the last eight years, it is that one of the most important things the government can do, the federal government, probably the most important, is to be fiscally responsible. And that's why Al Gore and I are committed to balancing the budget every year. In fact, the paying off the debt by the year 2012, when by our calculation our opponent's economic plan still leaves America $2.8 trillion in debt. MODERATOR: Time. The next question goes to you. Gentlemen, this is the 21st Century. Yet on average an American working woman in our great nation earns 75 cents for each $1 earned by a working male. What do you males propose to do about it? LIEBERMAN: It's a good and important question. Obviously in our time, fortunately, great advances have been made by women achieving the kind of equality that they were too long denied. Bernie, your question is absolutely right. Women -- actually the number I have received 72 cents for every $1 a man receives in a comparable job. Al Gore and I have issued an economic plan in which we've stated specific goals for the future. And one of those goals is to eliminate the pay gap between men and women. It's unfair and it's unacceptable. And the first way we will do that is by supporting the Equal Pay Act which has been proposed in Congress which gives women the right to file legal actions against employers who are not treating them fairly and not paying them equally. Secondly, we're going to do everything we can using governmental support of business agencies such as the Small Business Administration to help women business owners have an opportunity to invest and begin businesses and make larger incomes themselves. And there are other civil rights and human rights laws that I think can come to play here. So bottom line, this is an unfair and unacceptable situation. And even though, as the economy has risen in the last eight years, America's women have risen with it and received more income, until women are receiving the same amount of pay for the same job they're doing as a man receives, we've not achieved genuine equality in this country. Al Gore and I are committed to closing that gap and achieving that equality. In so many families women are a significant bread earner or the only bread earner. So this cause affects not only the women, but families and the children as well. MODERATOR: Mr. Secretary. CHENEY: I share the view that we ought to have equal pay for equal work regardless of someone's gender. We have made progress in recent years, but I think we have a ways to go. It's not just about the differential with respect to women. If you look at our opponent's tax proposal, they discriminate between stay-at-home moms with children that they take care of themselves and those who go to work or who, in fact, have their kids taken care of outside the home. You, in effect, as a stay-at-home mom get no tax advantage under the Gore tax plan as opposed to the Bush proposal. It provides tax relief for everybody who pays taxes. It's important to understand the things we're trying to change and address in the course of the campaign and what our agenda is for the future, or plans are for the future focus very much about giving as much control as we can to individual Americans, be they men or women, be they single or married, as much control as possible over their own lives, especially in the area of taxation. We want to make certain that the American people have the ability to keep more of what they earn and then they can get to decide how to spend it. The proposal we have from Al Gore, basically, doesn't do that. It in effect lays out some 29 separate tax credits. If you live your life the way they want you to live your life, if you behave in a certain way, you qualify for a tax credit and at that point you get some relief. Bottom line, though, is 50 million American taxpayers out there get no advantages at all out of the Gore tax proposal, whereas under the Bush plan everybody who pays taxes will get tax relief. LIEBERMAN: Might I have an opportunity to respond? MODERATOR: I caution you if you do this consistently we won't cover a lot of topics. After the Senator responds, you don't have to feel compelled to respond to the Senator. Depending on what he says. LIEBERMAN: This is an important difference between us. I want to clarify it briefly if I can. The first thing is the tax relief program that we've proposed, one of the many tax credits for the middle class includes a $500 tax credit for stay-at-home moms just as a way of saying we understand that you are performing a service for our society. We want you to have that tax credit. Second, the number of 50 million Americans not benefitting from our tax cut program is absolutely wrong. It's an estimate done on an earlier form of our tax cut program and it's just plain wrong. And secondly, although Governor Bush says that his tax cut program, large as it is, gives a tax cut to everybody, as the newspapers indicated earlier this week, the Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan group in Congress, says the 27 million Americans don't get what the governor said they would in the tax program. Al Gore and I want to live within our means. We won't give it away as a tax cut and certainly not to the 1% of the public that doesn't need it now. We're focusing on the middle class in the areas they tell us they need it. Tax credits for better and more expensive child care, tax credits for middle class families that don't have health insurance from their employers. The tax deduction I talked about earlier. Very exciting deduction for up to $10,000 a year in the cost of a college tuition. A $3,000 tax credit for the cost -- well, actually for a family member who stays home with a parent or grandparent who is ill. And a very exciting tax credit program that I hope I'll have a chance to talk about later, Bernie, that encourages savings by people early in life and any time in life by having the federal government match savings for the 75 million Americans who make $100,000 or less up to $2,000 a year. Very briefly, if a young couple making $50,000 a year saves $1,000, the government will put another $1,000 in that account. By the time they retire, they'll not only have guaranteed Social Security, but more than $200,000 in that retirement fund. Now, that's -- MODERATOR: Your time is up, Senator. CHENEY: You have to be a CPA to understand what he just said. The fact of the matter is the plan is so complex that the ordinary American is never going to ever figure out what they even qualify for. It's a classic example of wanting to have a program, in this case a tax program, that will, in fact, direct people to live their lives in certain ways rather than empowering them to make decisions for themselves. It is a big difference between us. They like tax credits, we like tax reform and tax cuts. MODERATOR: Mr. Secretary, this question is for you. Would you support the effort of House Republicans who want legislation to restrict distribution of the abortion drug RU-486? CHENEY: The abortion issue is a very tough one, without question, and a very important one. Governor Bush and I have empathy. We want to reduce the incidence of abortion on our society. Many on the pro-choice side have said the same thing. Even Bill Clinton has advocated reducing abortion to make it as rare as possible. With respect to the question of RU-486, we believe that -- of course, that it's recently been approved by the FDA. That really was a question of whether or not it was safe to be used by women. They didn't address the sort of the question of whether or not there should or should not be abortion in the society so much as evaluate that particular drug. What we would like to be able to do is to look for ways to reach across the divide between the two points of view and find things that we can do together to reduce the incidence of abortion. Such things as promoting adoption as an alternative. Encouraging parental notification. And we also think banning the horrific practice of partial birth abortions is an area where there could be agreement. Congress has twice passed by overwhelming margins, a significant number from both parties, the ban on partial birth abortions. Twice it's been vetoed by Bill Clinton and Al Gore. We hope eventually they would recognize that's not a good position for them to be in. With respect to the RU-486 proposal, at this stage I haven't looked at that particular piece of legislation. Governor Bush made it clear the other night he did not anticipate that he would be able to go in an direct the FDA to reverse course on that particular issue, primarily because the decision they made was on the drug, not the question of whether or not it would support abortion. LIEBERMAN: It's a very important question and one on which these two tickets have dramatically different points of view. My answer is no, I would not support legislation that is being introduced in Congress to override the Food and Drug Administration decision on RU-486. The administration, FDA worked 12 years on this serious problem. They made a judgment based on what was good for women's health. A doctor has to pescribe and care for a woman using it. I think it's a decision we ought to let stand because it was made by experts. But let me say more generally that the significant difference here on this issue is that Al Gore and I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. Our opponents will not. We know that this is a difficult personal, moral, medical issue, but that is exactly why it ought to be left under our law to a woman, her doctor and her God. Now, one area in which we agree, Al Gore and I, we believe that the government ought to do everything it can to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. And, therefore, the number of abortions. Incidentally, here there is good news to report. The number of abortions is actually down in America over the last eight years. In fact, over the last eight years the number of teenage pregnancies has dropped 20%. And the reason it has is that there are good programs out there that Al Gore and I will continue to support, such as family planning and programs that encourage abstinence. But when the health of a woman is involved, I think the government has to be respectful. I supported, in fact, a bill in the Senate that would have prohibited late-term abortions except in cases where the health or life of the mother was involved. I did not support the so-called partial birth abortion bill because it would have prohibited that form of abortion at any stage of the pregnancy regardless of the effect on the health and life of the woman. That's unacceptable. MODERATOR: This question is for you, Senator. If Yugoslavia President Slobodan Milosevic prevails, notwithstanding the election results, would you support his overthrow? LIEBERMAN: Well, there's good news from Belgrade today, Bernie, as you know. It's unconfirmed. The encouraging news is that the state news agency is reporting that Mr. Kostunica is the president-elect. Some press reports say that Milosevic has actually left Belgrade. They're not confirmed. That is a very happy ending to a terrible story. It's the end of a reign of terror. If that is not confirmed and does not happen, then I think the United States, with its European allies, ought to do everything we can to encourage the people of Serbia to do what they've been doing to rise up and end the reign of terror by Milosevic and bring themselves back into the family of nations where they will be welcomed by the United States and others. You know, I'm very proud on this night as it appears that Milosevic is about to or has fallen, of the leadership role the United States played in the effort to stop his aggression and genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo. I know opponents have said they thought it was overreaching. It wasn't. It was a matter of principle in America's national interest and values. The fact is that we stopped the aggression, we stopped the genocide, and therefore strengthened our relationship with our European allies in NATO. And, in fact, made the United States more respected and trusted by our allies and more feared by our enemies. I think that Vice President Gore played a critical role, passionate role in leading the administration, along with Republican supporters like Bob Dole and John McCain, to do the right thing in the Balkans. And hopefully tonight we're seeing the final results of that bold and brave effort. MODERATOR: Secretary Cheney. CHENEY: I noted, like Joe, I'm pleased to see what happened in Yugoslavia today. I hope it marks the end of Milosevic. I think probably more than anything else it's a victory for the Serbian people. They've taken to the streets to support their democracy, to support their vote. In some respects this is a continuation of a process that began ten years ago all across eastern Europe and has only now arrived in Serbia. We saw it in Germany, Rumania, Czechoslovakia, and the people of eastern Europe rose up and made their claim for freedom. And I think we all admire that. I think with respect to how this process has been managed most recently, we want to do everything we can to support Mr. Milosevic's departure. Certainly, though, that would not involve committing U.S. troops. I do think it's noteworthy that there appears to be an effort underway to get the Russians involved. I noted the other night, for example, Tuesday night at the debate in Boston, Governor Bush suggested exactly that we ought to try to get the Russians involved to exercise some leverage over the Serbians. It's now clear from the press that, in fact, that's exactly what they were doing. It's -- Governor Bush was correct in his assessment and his recommendation. He has supported the administration on Kosovo. He lobbied actively against passage of the Byrd-Warner provision which would have set a specific deadline, one he felt was too soon, for forcing the U.S. troops out. He's been supportive of the policy that we've seen with respect to Yugoslavia. And I think he deserves a lot of credit for that. I would go beyond that. I think this is an opportunity for the United States to test President Putin of Russia. Now is the time we ought to find out whether he's committed to democracy. Whether he's willing to support the forces of freedom and democracy there in the area of eastern Europe. And it's a test for him whether he represents the old guard in the Soviet Union. One of the most important challenges we face as a nation is how we manage that process of integrating those 150 million eastern Europeans into the security and economic framework of Europe. MODERATOR: Your question, Mr. Secretary. You and Governor Bush charge the Clinton-Gore administration have presided over the deterioration and overextension of America's armed forces. Should U.S. military personnel be deployed as warriors or peacekeepers? CHENEY: My preference is to deploy them as warriors. There may be occasion when it's appropriate to use them in a peacekeeping role, but I think the role ought to be limited, a time limit on it. The reason we have a military is to be able to fight and win wars. And to maintain with sufficient strength so that would-be adversaries are deterred from ever launching a war in the first place. I think that the administration has, in fact, in this area failed in a major responsibility. We've seen a reduction in our forces far beyond anything that was justified by the end of the Cold War. At the same time we've seen a rapid expansion of our commitments around the world as troops have been sent hither and yon. There was testimony before the Joint Chiefs of Staff before the Armed Services Committee that pointed out a lot of these problems. General Mike Ryan of the Air Force with 40% fewer aircraft, he's now undertaking three times as many deployments on a regular basis as he had to previously. We're overcommitted and underresourced. This has had some other unfortunate effects. I saw a letter the other day from a young captain stationed in Fort Bragg, a graduate of West Point in '95 getting ready to get out of the service because he's only allowed to train with his troops when fuel is available for the vehicles and only allowed to fire their weapons twice a year. He's concerned if he had to ever go into combat there would be lives lost. It's a legitimate concern, the fact the U.S. military is worse off today than it was eight years ago. It's a high priority for myself and Governor Bush to rebuild the U.S. military and to give them good leadership and build up the forces. MODERATOR: You're shaking your head in disagreement. LIEBERMAN: I want to assure the American people that the American military is the best-trained, best-equipped, most powerful force in the world. And that Al Gore and I will do whatever it takes to keep them that way. It's not right, and it's not good for our military, to run them down essentially in the midst of a partisan political debate. The fact is that you've got to judge the military by what the military leaders say. Secretary Bill Cohen and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will both tell you the American military is ready to meet any threat we may face in the world today. The fact is, judging by its results from Desert Storm to the Balkans, Bosnia and Kosovo, to the operations that are still being conducted to keep Saddam Hussein in a box in Iraq, the American military has performed brilliantly. This administration has turned around the drop in spending that began in the mid-'80's and right through the Bush-Cheney administration, but now it's stopped. We passed the largest pay increase in a generation for our military. And the interesting fact here, in spite of the rhetoric that my opponent has just spoken, the reality is if you look at our projected budgets for the next ten years, Al Gore and I actually commit twice as much, $100 billion in additional funding for our military than Governor Bush does. And their budget allows nothing additional for acquisition of new weapons systems. That's the same thing that the chiefs of the services will not be happy about. They need the new equipment, the new systems that Al Gore and I are committed to giving them. CHENEY: This is a special interest of mine. I would like a chance to elaborate further, if I might. The facts are dramatically different. I'm not attacking the military, Joe. I have enormous regard for the men and women of the U.S. military. I had the privilege of working with them while I was the Secretary of Defense. No one has a higher regard than I do for them. It's irresponsible to suggest we shouldn't have that debate, that we should ignore what is a major, major concern. If you have friends and relatives serving in the U.S. military, you know there's a problem. If you look at the data that's available, 40% of our Army helicopters are not combat ready. The combat readiness level in the Air Force dropped from 85% to 65%. Significant problems of retention. The important thing for us to remember is that we're a democracy and we're defended by volunteers. Everybody out there tonight wearing the uniform standing on guard to protect the United States is there because they volunteered to put on a uniform. When we don't give them the spare parts they need, when we don't give our pilots the flying hours they need, when we don't give them the kind of leadership that spells out what their mission is and let's them know why they're putting their lives at risk, then we undermine that morale. That's an extraordinarily valuable trust. There is no more important responsibility for a President of the United States than his role as Commander in Chief. When he decides when to send our young men and women to war. When we send them without the right kind of training, when we send them poorly equipped or with equipment that's old and broken down, we put their lives at risk. We will suffer more casualties in the next conflict if we don't look to those basic problems now. This administration has a bad track record in this regard, and it's available for anybody who wants to look at the record and wants to talk to our men and women in uniform, and wants to spend time with the members of the Joint Chiefs, wants to look at readiness levels and other -- other indicators. Final point, the issue of procurement is very important because we're running now off the buildup of the investment we made during the Reagan years. As that equipment gets old, it has to be replaced. We've taken money out of the procurement budget to support other ventures. We have not been investing in the future of the U.S. military. LIEBERMAN: It's important to respond to this. Yes, of course it's an important debate to have as part of this campaign, but I don't want either the military to feel uneasy or the American people to feel insecure. What I'm saying now I'm basing on serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee talking to exactly the people Dick Cheney has mentioned, the Secretary of Defense, the Chiefs of Staff. I've visited our fighting forces around the world. I'm telling you that we are ready to meet any contingency that might arise. The good news here and the interesting news is that we have met our recruitment targets in each of the services this year. In fact, in the areas where our opponents have said we are overextended, such as the Balkans, the soldiers there have a higher rate of re-enlistment than anywhere else in the service because they feel a sense of purpose, a sense of mission. In fact, this administration has begun to transform the American military to take it away from being a Cold War force to prepare it to meet the threats of the new generation of tomorrow, of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, cyber warfare. The fact is that Governor Bush recommended in his major policy statement on the military earlier this year that we skip the next generation of military equipment; helicopters, submarines, tactical air fighters, all the rest. That would really cripple our readiness. Exactly the readiness that Dick Cheney is talking about. Al Gore and I are committed to continuing this acquisition program, transforming the military. There's fewer people in uniform today, but person-to-person, person-by-person, unit-by-unit, this is the most powerful and effective military, not only in the world today, but in the history of the world. And again, Al Gore and I will do whatever is necessary to keep it that way. MODERATOR: Senator Lieberman, this question to you. Once again in the Middle East, peace talks on the one hand, deadly confrontations on the other, and the flashpoint, Jerusalem, and then there's Syria. Is United States policy what it should be? LIEBERMAN Yes, it is. It has truly pained me in the last week to watch the unrest and the death occurring in the Middle East between the Israelis and the Palestinians. So much work has been done by the people there with the support of this administration. So much progress has been made in the original Oslo agreements between the Israelis, the Palestinians, adopted in 1993, and the peace between Israel and Jordan thereafter. And America has a national strategic interest and principal interest in peace in the Middle East, and Al Gore has played a critical role in advancing that process over the last eight years. What pains me is I watched the unrest in recent days between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That these two peoples have come in some senses, generations forward, centuries forward, in the last seven years. They are so close to a final peace agreement, I hope and pray that the death and unrest in the last week will not create the kinds of scars that make it hard for them to go back to the peace table with American assistance and achieve what I'm convinced the great majority of the Israeli and Palestinian people want, and these people throughout the Middle East, which is peace. Secretary Albright has been in Paris meeting with the prime minister. I hope and pray her mission is successful, that there is a cease fire, and the parties return to the peace table. We've been on a very constructive course in the Middle East, played an unusual, unique role. And I'm convinced that Al Gore and I will continue to do that. I hope I might, through my friendships in Israel and throughout the Arab world, play a unique role in bringing peace to this -- this sacred region of the world. CHENEY: It has been a difficult area to work in for a long time. Numerous administrations going back to World War II have had to wrestle with the problem of what should happen to the Middle East. We made significant breakthroughs at the end of the Bush administration because of the Gulf War. We had joined together with Arab allies and done enormous damage to the Iraqi armed forces. Iraq was the biggest military threat to Israel. By virtue of the end of the Cold War, the Soviets were no longer a factor. They used to fish in troubled waters whenever they had the opportunity in the Middle East. With the end of the Soviet Union, the implosion of the empire, that created a vacuum and made it easier for us to operate there. We were able to, I think, reassure both Arabs and Israelis would play a major role there. We would deploy forces if we had to to engage in military operations to help our friends. We were able to convene them in a conference. The first time Arab and Israelis sat down face-to-face and began this process of trying to move the peace process forward. I think also a lot of credit goes to some great men like Yitzak Rabin. His tragic passing was a great tragedy for everybody who cares about peace in the Middle East. He was a man who had the military stature to be able to confidently persuade the Israelis to take risks for peace. I think Barak has tried to same thing. I hope that we can get this resolved as soon as possible. My guess is the next administration is going to be the one that is going to have to come to grips with the current state of affairs there. I think it's very important that we have an administration where we have a president with firm leadership who has the kind of track record of dealing straight with people, of keeping his word so friends and allies both respect us and our adversaries fear us. MODERATOR: This question is for you, Mr. Secretary. If Iraq's president Saddam Hussein were found to be developing weapons of mass destruction, Governor Bush has said he would, quote, "Take him out." Would you agree with such a deadly policy? CHENEY: We might have no other choice. We'll have to see if that happens. The thing about Iraq, of course, was at the end of the war we had pretty well decimated their military. We had put them back in the box, so to speak. We had a strong international coalition raid against them, effective economic sanctions, and an inspection regime was in place under the U.N. and it was able to do a good job of stripping out the capacity to build weapons of mass destruction, the work he had been doing that had not been destroyed during the war in biological and chemical agents, as well as a nuclear program. Unfortunately now we find ourselves in a situation where that started to fray on us, where the coalition now no longer is tied tightly together. Recently the United Arab Emirates have reopened diplomatic relations with Baghdad. The Russians and French are flying commercial airliners back into Baghdad and thumbing their nose at the international sanctions regime. We're in a situation today where our posture with Iraq is weaker than it was at the end of the war. It's unfortunate. I also think it's unfortunate we find ourselves in a position where we don't know for sure what might be transpiring inside Iraq. I certainly hope he's not regenerating that kind of capability, but if he were, if in fact Saddam Hussein were taking steps to try to rebuild nuclear capability or weapons of mass destruction, you would have to give very serious consideration to military action to -- to stop that activity. I don't think you can afford to have a man like Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons in the Middle East. MODERATOR: Senator. LIEBERMAN: It would, of course, be a very serious situation if we had evidence, credible evidence, that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. I must say, I don't think a political campaign is the occasion to declare exactly what we would do in that case. I think that's a matter of such critical national security importance that it ought to be left to the Commander in Chief, leaders of the military, Secretary of State to make that kind of decision without the heat of a political campaign. The fact is that we will not enjoy real stability in the Middle East until Saddam Hussein is gone. The Gulf War was a great victory. And incidentally, Al Gore and I were two of the ten Democrats in the Senate who crossed party lines to support President Bush and Secretary Cheney in that war. We're proud we did that. The war did not end with a total victory. Saddam Hussein remained there. As a result, we have had almost ten years now of instability. We have continued to operate almost all of this time military action to enforce a no-fly zone. We have been struggling with Saddam about the inspectors. We're doing everything we can to get the inspectors back in there. But in the end there's not going to be peace until he goes. And that's why I was proud to co-sponsor the Iraq Liberation Act with Senator Trent Lott where I have kept in touch with the Iraqi opposition, broad base. We met with them earlier this year. We are supporting them in their efforts and will continue to support them until the Iraqi people rise up and do what the people of Serbia have done in the last few days, get rid of a despot. We'll welcome you back into the family of nations where you belong. MODERATOR: Senator Lieberman, this question is for you. Many experts are forecasting continuing chaotic oil prices in the world market. Wholesale natural gas prices here in our country are leaping. Then there are coal and electricity. Have previous Republican and Democratic Congresses and administrations, including this one, done their job to protect the American people? LIEBERMAN: Not enough, but this administration and Vice President Gore and I have had both a long-term strategy to develop energy independence and a short-term strategy. In fact, if the -- this administration had been given the amount of funding that it had requested from the Republican Congress, we would be further along in the implementation of that long-term strategy aimed at developing cleaner sources of energy, giving tax credits to individuals and businesses to conserve and use energy more efficiently. Aimed at a partnership for a new generation of vehicles with the American automobile industry which is making great progress and can produce a vehicle that can get 80 miles per gallon. We also have a short-term strategy. To deal with exactly the kind of ups and downs of energy prices. I know it was controversial, but Al Gore and I believed it was important in the short-term to reach into the strategic petroleum reserve, put it in the market, show the big oil companies and the OPEC oil-producing countries that we have resources. We can fight back. We aren't going to lay back and let them roll over our economy. We did it also because gasoline prices were rising and home heating oil inventories were real low. Both of our tickets agree on keeping the low income housing assistance program, but our opponents offer no assistance to middle-class families hit by rising gas prices and a shortage of home heating oil. Now the price of oil on world markets has dropped $6 a barrel. That's a good result and I'm proud of it. MODERATOR: Mr. Secretary. CHENEY: This is an area where I think again Joe and I have fairly significant disagreements. My assessment is that there is no comprehensive energy policy today. That as a nation, we are in trouble because the administration has not addressed these issues. We have the prospects of brownouts in California. We have a potential home heating oil crisis in the northeast. We have gasoline price rises in various other places. For years now the administration has talked about reducing our dependence on foreign sources of oil, but they haven't done it. In fact, we've gone exactly in the opposite direction. We have the lowest rate of domestic production of oil now in 46 years. You have to go back to 1954 to find a time when we produced as little oil as we do today. Our imports are at an all-time record high. In June we imported almost 12 million barrels of oil a day. We have other problems. We don't have refinery capacity. We haven't built a new refinery in this country for ten years. They're operating at 96% or 97% capacity. Even with more crude available they're probably not going to be able to do very much by way of producing additional home heating oil. We have a growing problem with our growing dependence on foreign sources of energy. We ought to be able to shift the trend and begin to move it in the right direction. We need to do a lot more about generating the capacity for power here at home. We need to get on with the business and we think we can do it very safely in an environmentally sound manner. We don't think we ought to buy into this false choice that somehow we cannot develop energy resources without being cautious with the environment. We can. We have the technology to do it and we ought to do it. We do support the low income energy assistance program. We think it's important that senior citizens don't suffer this winter, but we need to get on to the business of having a plan to develop our domestic energy resources in producing more supplies, and this administration hasn't produced them. MODERATOR: Senator, I'm going to continue. Thank you, sir. Your congressional record, you sponsored a bill that said no to oil and gas exploration in the Wyoming wilderness areas of your home state. However, you co-sponsored a bill that said yes to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Your explanation? CHENEY: It shows I have a balanced approach to how we deal with environmental issues. MODERATOR: Not a case of not in my backyard? CHENEY: I think we have to make choices. I worked on that with my good friend Al Simpson for about four years. We set aside a part of Wyoming, nearly a million acres of wilderness that ought to be separate and not be developed. We think that was important. There are a lot of areas where Governor Bush and I support restraint. We support the moratorium on drilling off the coast of California, but there are places where we think we ought to go forward and develop those resources. The Arctic National Wildlife Reserve is one of them. It's on the north slope right next to Prudhoe Bay. The infrastructure is there to be able to deliver that product to market. We think we can do it given today's technology in a way that will not damage the environment, will not permanently marr the countryside at all, and so what we're looking for with respect to environmental policy and energy policy is balance. We do have to make choices, we recognize that. The way you phrased the question, frankly I welcome because it shows, in fact, we are trying to pursue a balanced approach and the suggestion that somehow all we care about is energy development isn't true. But we do have to get on with developing those resources or we're going to find ourselves ever more dependent on foreign sources. We're going to find that the fact that we don't have an energy policy out there is one of the major storm clouds on the horizon for our economy. I think if you look for something that could develop, some problem that could arise, that might, in fact, jeopardize our continuing prosperity, it's the possibility that we might find ourselves without adequate supplies of energy in the future. And there would be no quicker way to shut down our economy than that. LIEBERMAN: Bernie, we agree on the problem but we couldn't disagree more on the response to the problem. The problem is accurately stated. No matter how strong we are economically, if we remain dependent on a source of energy that is outside our control, we're not going to be as strong as we should be. Others around the world can effectively yank our chain, and we cannot allow that to continue to happen. I'm afraid that our opponent's response to this is one-sided, and it is essentially to develop the resources within the United States almost regardless of where. I'm against drilling in the Arctic Refuge. This is one of the most beautiful, pristine places that the good Lord has created on earth. It happens to be within the United States of America. It's not worth it to do that for what seems to be the possibility of six months' worth of oil, seven to 12 years from now. That's not much of a response to the immediate problem that gasoline consumers and home heating oil customers are facing this winter. There are more resources within the United States that we can develop. This isn't mentioned much and appreciated much. In the last eight years drilling for gas on federal lands has gone up 60% and it's been done in an environmentally protected way. The administration has encouraged the drilling for deep gas and oil going on in the western Gulf today. The answer here is new technology that will create millions of new jobs. Let me just say this. If we can get three miles more per gallon from our cars we'll get a -- we'll save 1 million barrels of oil a day, which is exactly what the refuge at its best in Alaska would produce. The choice to me is clear. We have to develop fuel cells, alternative energy, encourage people to conserve and to be efficient. MODERATOR: This question is for you, Senator. We all know Social Security is the backbone of the retirement system in our nation. Can either of you pledge tonight categorically that no one will lose benefits under your plans? LIEBERMAN: Yes, indeed. I can pledge to the American people categorically that no one will lose benefits under our plan for Social Security as far forward as 2054. And let me come back and say, Bernie, that Al Gore and I view Social Security as probably the best thing the government did in the second half -- the last century. It has created a floor under which seniors cannot fall, and so many of them depend on it for their basic living, for their livelihood. It's critically important to protect it. That's why Al and I have committed to putting that Social Security surplus in a lockbox, not touching it. That's what allows us to keep Social Security solvent to 2054. Our opponents have an idea for privatizing Social Security that will jeopardize Social Security payments to recipients. And I looked at this idea. If I may use an oil industry analogy, which is to say that sometimes as you know, Dick, better than I, you have to dig deep whether there's oil in a well. For a while I was drilling into this idea of privatization of Social Security. It requires taking as much as a trillion dollars out of the Social Security fund. The independent analysts have said that would put the fund out of money in 2023, or if it's not out of money, benefits will have to be cut by over 50%. That's just not worth doing. Al Gore and I are going to guarantee Social Security and add to it the retirement savings plan that I mentioned earlier which will help middle-class families looking forward. They will have not only Social Security, but a superb extra retirement account as well. Social Security plus with us. With all due respect, Social Security minus from the Bush-Cheney ticket. CHENEY: You won't be surprised if I disagree. The Social Security system is in trouble. It's been a fantastic program and been there for 65 years that has provided benefits for senior citizens over that period of time. For my parents. It means a great deal to millions of Americans. And Governor Bush and I want to make absolutely certain that the first thing we do is guarantee the continuation of those payments, those benefits and keep those promises that were made. But if you look down the road, you say you're 30 years old today, and I have two daughters about that age. They seriously question whether or not there will be any system left for them. That's because the demographics that work out there, it's almost an iron law. They know how many people there are, we know when the baby boom generation is coming along it will drive the system into bankruptcy unless we reform and deal with it. The reform we would like to offer is to allow our young people to begin to take a portion of the payroll tax, 2% of it, and invest it in a personal retirement account. That does several things. First of all, it gives them a stake in the Social Security system. That becomes their property. They own it. They can pass it on to their kids if they want. They don't have that kind of equity in Social Security today. Secondly, we can generate a higher return off that investment than you get in the existing system. You get about a 2% return of what you pay into Social Security. We can generate at least 6%. At least three times what we're able to get now. And long-term by generating a bigger return, we'll put additional funds into the system that will help to survive that crunch that is otherwise going to hit in the future. Bottom line is there's a choice here. With respect to Al Gore and Joe's plan, they don't reform Social Security. They add another huge obligation on top of it that future generations will have to pay. They don't reform it and don't save it. We have a plan to do that and a plan to give our young people a choice and more control over their own lives. MODERATOR: Mr. Secretary, this question is for you. Washington is a caldron of political bickering and partisanship. The American people have had enough. How would you elevate political discourse and purpose? CHENEY: Well, I think there are a number of ways to do it. First of all, I agree with your assessment. I've been out of Washington for the last eight years and spent the last five years running a company global concern. And been out in the private sector building a business, hiring people, creating jobs. I have a different perspective on Washington than I had when I was there in the past. I'm proud of my service for 25 years, but also proud I had the opportunity to go out and get a different experience. And you're absolutely right. People are fed up. They've had enough with the bickering and the partisanship that seems to characterize the debate that goes on in the nation's capital. I've seen it done differently in Texas. I've watched George Bush. And one of the reasons I was eager to sign on when he asked me to become his running mate is because I've been so tremendously impressed with what he's done as the Governor of Texas. He came in when he had a legislature completely controlled by the other party. He managed to reached across partisan lines and put them to work to achieve good things for the State of Texas. Partly because he didn't point the finger of blame looking for scapegoats he was quick to share the credit. He ended up, as a result of that activity, having the top Democrat in the state, Bob Bulloch, endorse George Bush for reelection. It's possible to change the tone. It is possible to get people to work together and to begin to focus on achieving results. I think it will take new leadership. I don't think you can do it, with all due respect to Al Gore, with somebody who spent all the last 24 years in that Washington environment and who campaigns on the basis of castigating others, pointing the finger of blame at others in terms of blaming business or various groups for failings. I think you have to be able to reach out and work together and build coalitions. I think George W. Bush has done it in Texas and can do it at the national level. LIEBERMAN: You're absolutely right. There's too much partisanship in Washington. It puzzles me. You think people in public life and politics would want to do what would make them popular, and too often people in both parties act in a way that brings down the institutions of government, and it's a shame. I have tried very hard in my career to call them as I see them and work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get things done. I'm proud of my record in that regard, and I certainly think that would be an asset that I could bring to the vice presidency. I worked with John McCain on cultural values. I worked with Connie Mack on foreign policy. Don Nichols on the International Religious Freedom Act. If I go on much longer I'll get in trouble with my own party. That's the way things get done. I'm proud of those partnerships. Let me say a word about Al Gore. In his years in the house and Senate, he formed similar bipartisan partnerships. If you look back over the last eight years, the most significant accomplishments of this administration in which Al Gore was centrally involved were the result, most of them, of bipartisan agreements. After all, the Welfare Reform Act, which Al Gore promised to lead the effort on to get people off of welfare to set time limits, to get people to enjoy the dignity of work. That was a bipartisan act that was adopted. The Anti-Crime Act that has helped to lower crime more than 20% in our country was also bipartisan. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which was critical to getting our economy to the point and our government to the point of unprecedented surplus we enjoy today also was bipartisan, and Al Gore was involved. I would say that's exactly the kind of bipartisan leadership that he and I can bring to Washington to get things done. CHENEY: With all due respect, Joe, there's an awful lot of evidence that there hasn't been any bipartisan leadership out of this administration or Al Gore. Medical problems have not been addressed. We have had eight years of problems with prescription drugs not being addressed. Social Security problems not been addressed. The educational problem has not been addressed. They've been in a position of responsibility in the White House. The powerful interests, if you will, in Washington, D.C. and been unable to work with others. Medicare is a good example. A good effort at a bipartisan solution for Medicare whether you bought or didn't buy the answer that was generated, the fact is the administration set it up and pulled the plug on it because they would rather have an issue, not a solution. They haven't read from a bipartisan standpoint and I think Al Gore's record isn't very good. LIEBERMAN: Dick Cheney must be one of the few people who think nothing has been accomplished in the last eight years. Promises were made and promises were kept. Has Al Gore -- did Al Gore make promises in 1992? Absolutely. Did he deliver? Big time. Let me put it that way. That's the record. Look at the 20 -- look at the 22 million new jobs. Look at the 4 million new businesses. Look at the lower interest rates, low rate of inflation, high rate of growth. I think if you asked most people in America today that famous question that Ronald Reagan asked, "Are you better off today than you were eight years ago?" Most people would say yes. I'm pleased to see, Dick, from the newspapers that you're better off than you were eight years ago, too. CHENEY: I can tell you, Joe, the government had absolutely nothing to do with it. (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) MODERATOR: This question is to you. LIEBERMAN: I can see my wife and I think she's saying, "I think he should go out into the private sector." CHENEY: I'll help you do that, Joe. LIEBERMAN: I think you've done so well there, I want to keep you there. (LAUGHTER) MODERATOR: Dick Cheney, Joe Lieberman, you are black for this question. Imagine yourself an African-American. You become the target of racial profiling either while walking or driving. African-American Joseph Lieberman, what would you do about it? LIEBERMAN: I would be outraged. It is such an assault on the basic promise that America makes that the law will treat individuals as individuals regardless of their status. That is to say their race, their nationality, their gender, sexual orientation, etcetera, etcetera. And the sad fact is that racial profiling occurs in this country. I have a few African-American friends who have gone through this horror and, you know, it makes me want to kind of hit the wall because it's such an assault on their humanity and their citizenship. We can't tolerate it anymore. That's why I supported legislation in Congress. It's the most we could get done to do a hard study to make the case of the extent to which racial profiling is occurring in our country. But it's also why I'm so proud that Al Gore said two things. First we would issue, if we're fortunate enough to be elected, an executive order prohibiting racial profiling. And secondly the first Civil Rights Act legislation we would send to Congress would be a national ban on racial profiling. It is just wrong. It is unAmerican, and to think that in the 21st Century this kind of nonsense is still going on. We have to stop it. The only way to stop it is through the law. The law, after all, is meant to express our values and our aspirations for our society. And our values are violently contradicted by the kind of racial profiling that exists. I had a friend a while ago who works in the government, works at the White House, African-American, stopped, surrounded by police for no other cause that anyone can determine than the color of his skin. That can't be in America anymore. MODERATOR: Mr. Secretary. CHENEY: Bernie, I would like to answer your question to the best of my ability, but I don't think I can understand fully what it would be like. I try hard to put myself in that position and imagine what it would be like, but I've always been part of the majority, never part of a minority group. It has to be a horrible experience. We still have the sense of anger and frustration that go with knowing that the only reason you were stopped, the only reason you were arrested, was because of the color of your skin would make me extraordinarily angry, and I'm not sure how I would respond. I think that we have to recognize that while we've made enormous progress in the U.S. in racial relations and come a very long way, we still have a very long way to go. We still have not only the problems we're talking about here tonight in terms of the problems you mentioned in profiling, but beyond that, we still have an achievement gap in education, income differentials, differences in life span. We still have, I think, a society that -- where we haven't done enough yet to live up to that standard that we'd all like to live up to. I think in terms of equality of opportunity, that we judge people as individuals. As Martin Luther King said, we ought to judge people on the context of their character instead of the color of their skin. I would hope we can make progress on that in the years ahead. MODERATOR: Senator, sexual orientation. Should a male who loves a male and a female who loves a female have all -- all the constitutional rights enjoyed by every American citizen? LIEBERMAN: Very current and difficult question. I've been thinking about it. I want to explain what my thoughts have been. Maybe I should begin this answer by going back to the beginning of the country and the Declaration of Independence which says there at the outset that all of us are created equal and that we're endowed not by any bunch of politicians and philosophers, but by our Creator, with those rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. At the beginning of our history, that promise and ideal was not realized or experienced by all Americans, but over time since then we have extended the orbit of that promise. In our time at the frontier of that effort is extending those kinds of rights to gay and lesbian Americans who are citizens of this country and children of the same awesome God just as much as any of the rest of us are. That's why I have been an original co-sponsor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which aims to prevent gay and lesbian Americans who are otherwise qualified from being discriminated against in the workplace. And I've sponsored other pieces of legislation and taken other actions that carry out that ideal. The question you pose is a difficult one for this reason. It confronts or challenges the traditional notion of marriage as being limited to a heterosexual couple, which I support. I must say I'm thinking about this, because I have friends who are in gay and lesbian partnerships who said to me, isn't it fair. We don't have legal rights to inheritance, visitation when one partner is ill, to health care benefits. That's why I'm thinking about it. My mind is open to taking some action that will address those elements of unfairness while respecting the traditional religious and civil institution of marriage. MODERATOR: Mr. Secretary. CHENEY: This is a tough one, Bernie. The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. We shouldn't be able to choose and say you get to live free and you don't. That means people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's no one's business in terms of regulating behavior in that regard. The next step then, of course, is the question you ask of whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction of the relationships or if they should be treated the same as a traditional marriage. That's a tougher problem. That's not a slam dunk. The fact of the matter is that matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area. I try to be open minded about it as much as I can and tolerant of those relationships. And like Joe, I'm also wrestling with the extent to which there ought to be legal sanction of those relationships. I think we ought to do everything we can to tolerate and accommodate whatever kind of relationships people want to enter into. MODERATOR: Your moderator has committed a boo-boo. I asked the sexual orientation question of you. I should not have done that in terms of rotation. Gentlemen, I apologize. LIEBERMAN: We forgive you. MODERATOR: Thank you. LIEBERMAN: You're human, like we are. MODERATOR: Mr. Secretary. Vice President of the United States of America, what would you bring to the job that you're opponent wouldn't? CHENEY: We clearly come from different political perspectives. Joe is a Democrat from New England, I'm a Republican from the west, from Wyoming. And I think that weighs into it to some extent. Clearly we're both in the positions we're in because of our personal relationships with our principals. I think the areas that I would bring are the things that Governor Bush emphasized when he picked me. That I have been White House Chief of Staff and ran the White House under President Ford. Spent ten years in the House, eight of that in the leadership. Served as Secretary of Defense, and then had significant experience in the private sector. I think that where there are differences between Joe and myself in terms of background and experience, I clearly have spent a lot of time in executive positions running large organizations both in private business as well as in government. And that is a set of qualifications that Governor Bush found attractive when he selected me. I'll leave it at that. MODERATOR: Senator? LIEBERMAN: I have great respect for Dick Cheney. I don't agree with a lot of things he said in this campaign. He was a very distinguished Secretary of Defense, and I don't have anything negative to say about him. I want to say with the humility that is required to respond to this statement that I think what I would bring to the office of the vice presidency is a lifetime experience. Growing up in a working class family, having the opportunity to go to a great public school system, then to go on to college and then to be drawn really by President Kennedy, as well as the values of service my family gave me, into public life. Wanting to make a difference. I have had extraordinary opportunities, thanks again to those folks back home in Connecticut as a senator, attorney general trying to enforce the law to protect them and the environment and consumers, and to litigate on behalf of humans rights. And for the last 12 years as a member of the Senate of the United States focusing on national security questions, environmental protection, economic growth and values. But perhaps what I most bring is a friendship and shared values and shared priorities with Al Gore. I have tremendous respect for Al Gore. I've known him for 15 years. He's an outstanding person as a public official and as a private person. His life is built on his faith. It's devoted to his family. He volunteered for service in Vietnam from the beginning. In Congress he's been willing to take on the big interests and fight for average people. As vice president I think he's been the most effective vice president in the history of the United States and he has the right program to use the prosperity all the American people have earned to help particularly hard working middle-class families raise up their children to enjoy a better life. I think that's what this is all about, why I'm so proud to be his running mate. MODERATOR: And because of my boo-boo I'm going to direct this question again to Secretary Cheney. Have you noticed a contradiction or hypocritical shift by your opponent on positions and issues since he was nominated? CHENEY: We've been trying very hard to keep this on a high plane, Bernie. LIEBERMAN: Thanks, Bernie. CHENEY: I do have a couple of concerns where I like the old Joe Lieberman better than I do the new Joe Lieberman. Let's see if I can put them in those terms. Joe established an outstanding record, I thought, in his work on this whole question of violence in the media. And the kinds of materials that were being peddled to our children. And many of us on the Republican side admired him for that. There is, I must say, the view now that having joined with Al Gore on the ticket on the other side, that the depth of conviction that we had admired before isn't quite as strong as it was, perhaps, in the past. The temptation on the one hand to criticize the activities of the industry, as was pointed out recently in the Federal Trade Commission where they're taking clearly material meant for adults and selling it to our children, while at the same time they are participating in fundraising events with some of the people responsible for that activity has been a source of concern for many of us. We were especially disturbed, Joe, at a recent fundraiser you attended where you got up and criticized George Bush's religion. I know you're not responsible for uttering any words of criticism of his religion. My concern would be, frankly, that you haven't been as -- as consistent as you had been in the past. That a lot of your good friends like Bill Bennett and others of us who had admired your firmness of purpose over the years have felt that you're not quite the crusader for that cause that you once were. LIEBERMAN: Bernie, you'll not be surprised to hear that I disagree. First let me talk about that joke about religion which I found very distasteful. And believe me, if anybody has devoted his life to respecting the role of religion in American life and understands that Americans from the beginning of our history have turned to God for strength and purpose, it's me. And any offense that was done, I apologize for. I thought that humor was unacceptable. Let me come to the question of Hollywood and then answer the general question. Al Gore and I have felt for a long time, first as parents and then only second as public officials, that we cannot let America's parents stand alone in this competition that they feel they're in with Hollywood to raise their own kids and give their kids the faith and values they want to give them. I've been a consistent crusader on that behalf. John McCain and I actually requested the Federal Trade Commission report that came out three or four weeks ago which proved conclusively that the entertainment industry was marketing adult-rated products to our children. That is just not acceptable. One finding was that they were actually using 10 to 12-year-olds to test screen adult-rated products. When that report came out, Al Gore and I said to the entertainment industry, stop it. If you don't stop it in six months, we'll ask the Federal Trade Commission to take action against you. We repeated that message when we went to Los Angeles. I repeat it today. We won't stop until the entertainment industry stops marketing its products to our children. Al Gore and I -- I'm out. Maybe I can come back to it. MODERATOR: Please continue. You have about ten seconds. LIEBERMAN: Al Gore and I agree on most everything, but we disagree on some things. But he said to me, be yourself, don't change a single position you have. And I have not changed a single position since Al Gore nominated me to be his vice president. MODERATOR: Gentlemen, now closing statements. A prior coin toss has determined that you begin, Senator Lieberman. LIEBERMAN: That went very quickly. Thank you, Bernie, and thanks, Dick Cheney, for a very good debate. I'm told tens of millions OF people have been watching this debate tonight. I must say, I wish one more person were here to watch and that is my dad, who died 15 years ago. If my dad were here, I would have the opportunity to tell him that he was right when he taught me that in America, if you have faith, work hard and play by the rules, there is nothing you cannot achieve. And here I am even the son of a man who started working the night shift on a bakery truck can end up being a candidate for Vice President of the United States. That says a lot about the character of this nation and the goodness of you, the American people. I will tell you that Hadassah and I have traveled around this country in the last couple of months and met thousands and thousands of parents just like our moms and dads, hard working middle-class people paying their taxes, doing the jobs to keep the country running. Trying so hard to teach their kids right from wrong and believing in their hearts that their kids can make it. I agree with them. But to make it they need a leader who will stand up and fight for them for good education, the best education in the world. For a sound retirement system, for prescription drug benefits for their parents. And for a government that is fiscally responsible, balances the budget. Keeps interest rates down so they can afford to buy a home or send their kids to college. To me Al Gore is that leader and will be that kind of president. You know, for 224 years Americans have dreamed bigger dreams and tried bolder solutions than any other people on earth. Now is not the time to settle for less than we can be. As good as things are today, Al Gore and I believe that with your help and God's help we can make the future of this good and blessed country even better. Thank you, God bless you and good night. MODERATOR: Mr. Secretary. CHENEY: Bernie, I want to thank you and Joe as well. I've enjoyed the debate this evening. And thank the folks here at the Centre College in Danville, Kentucky. This is a very important decision you're going to make on November 7. We have a fundamental choice between whether or not we continue with our old ways of big government, high taxes and ever more intrusive bureaucracy, or whether we take a new course for a new era. Governor Bush and I want to pursue the new course. We want to reform the Social Security system to guarantee benefits will be there for our retired folks, as well as make it possible for our young people to invest a portion of their payroll tax into a retirement account that they'll control and give them greater control over their own lives. We want to reform the Medicare system to make certain the benefits are there for our senior citizens, but also to provide prescription drug coverage for them and give them a range of choices in terms of the kind of insurance we have. We want to reform the education system. We want to restore our public schools to the greatness they once represented so that every parent has the opportunity to choose what is best for their child and so that every child has an opportunity to share in the American dream. We also want to reform the tax code. We think it's very important now that we have a surplus, that a portion of that surplus go back to the people who earned it. It's not the government's money, it's your money. You're entitled to it, and we would like to see to it that we provide tax relief for everybody who pays taxes. Finally, we think it's very important to rebuild the U.S. military. The military is in trouble. The trends are in the wrong direction. The finest men and women in uniform that you'll find anyplace in the world but they deserve our support. They deserve the resources that we need to provide for them and they deserve good leadership. George Bush is the man to do this. I've seen him do it in Texas. What we need is to be able to reach across the aisle. Put together coalitions of Republicans and Democrats and build the kinds of coalitions that will get something done in Washington. George Bush is a man of great integrity that will make a first rate president. MODERATOR: Senator Cheney and Senator Lieberman, your debate now joins American history. We thank you. LIEBERMAN: Thank you, Bernie. It was a great evening. (Applause) Text Source: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/vice-presidential-debate-centre-college-danville-kentucky-0

50th Inauguration: Second Inaugural Address of Ronald Reagan MONDAY, JANUARY 21, 1985 Senator Mathias, Chief Justice Burger, Vice President Bush, Speaker O'Neill, Senator Dole, Reverend Clergy, members of my family and friends, and my fellow citizens: This day has been made brighter with the presence here of one who, for a time, has been absent--Senator John Stennis. God bless you and welcome back. There is, however, one who is not with us today: Representative Gillis Long of Louisiana left us last night. I wonder if we could all join in a moment of silent prayer. (Moment of silent prayer.) Amen. There are no words adequate to express my thanks for the great honor that you have bestowed on me. I will do my utmost to be deserving of your trust. This is, as Senator Mathias told us, the 50th time that we the people have celebrated this historic occasion. When the first President, George Washington, placed his hand upon the Bible, he stood less than a single day's journey by horseback from raw, untamed wilderness. There were 4 million Americans in a union of 13 States. Today we are 60 times as many in a union of 50 States. We have lighted the world with our inventions, gone to the aid of mankind wherever in the world there was a cry for help, journeyed to the Moon and safely returned. So much has changed. And yet we stand together as we did two centuries ago. When I took this oath four years ago, I did so in a time of economic stress. Voices were raised saying we had to look to our past for the greatness and glory. But we, the present-day Americans, are not given to looking backward. In this blessed land, there is always a better tomorrow. Four years ago, I spoke to you of a new beginning and we have accomplished that. But in another sense, our new beginning is a continuation of that beginning created two centuries ago when, for the first time in history, government, the people said, was not our master, it is our servant; its only power that which we the people allow it to have. That system has never failed us, but, for a time, we failed the system. We asked things of government that government was not equipped to give. We yielded authority to the National Government that properly belonged to States or to local governments or to the people themselves. We allowed taxes and inflation to rob us of our earnings and savings and watched the great industrial machine that had made us the most productive people on Earth slow down and the number of unemployed increase. By 1980, we knew it was time to renew our faith, to strive with all our strength toward the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with an orderly society. We believed then and now there are no limits to growth and human progress when men and women are free to follow their dreams. And we were right to believe that. Tax rates have been reduced, inflation cut dramatically, and more people are employed than ever before in our history. We are creating a nation once again vibrant, robust, and alive. But there are many mountains yet to climb. We will not rest until every American enjoys the fullness of freedom, dignity, and opportunity as our birthright. It is our birthright as citizens of this great Republic, and we'll meet this challenge. These will be years when Americans have restored their confidence and tradition of progress; when our values of faith, family, work, and neighborhood were restated for a modern age; when our economy was finally freed from government's grip; when we made sincere efforts at meaningful arms reduction, rebuilding our defenses, our economy, and developing new technologies, and helped preserve peace in a troubled world; when Americans courageously supported the struggle for liberty, self-government, and free enterprise throughout the world, and turned the tide of history away from totalitarian darkness and into the warm sunlight of human freedom. My fellow citizens, our Nation is poised for greatness. We must do what we know is right and do it with all our might. Let history say of us, "These were golden years--when the American Revolution was reborn, when freedom gained new life, when America reached for her best." Our two-party system has served us well over the years, but never better than in those times of great challenge when we came together not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans united in a common cause. Two of our Founding Fathers, a Boston lawyer named Adams and a Virginia planter named Jefferson, members of that remarkable group who met in Independence Hall and dared to think they could start the world over again, left us an important lesson. They had become political rivals in the Presidential election of 1800. Then years later, when both were retired, and age had softened their anger, they began to speak to each other again through letters. A bond was reestablished between those two who had helped create this government of ours. In 1826, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, they both died. They died on the same day, within a few hours of each other, and that day was the Fourth of July. In one of those letters exchanged in the sunset of their lives, Jefferson wrote: "It carries me back to the times when, beset with difficulties and dangers, we were fellow laborers in the same cause, struggling for what is most valuable to man, his right to self-government. Laboring always at the same oar, with some wave ever ahead threatening to overwhelm us, and yet passing harmless ... we rode through the storm with heart and hand." Well, with heart and hand, let us stand as one today: One people under God determined that our future shall be worthy of our past. As we do, we must not repeat the well-intentioned errors of our past. We must never again abuse the trust of working men and women, by sending their earnings on a futile chase after the spiraling demands of a bloated Federal Establishment. You elected us in 1980 to end this prescription for disaster, and I don't believe you reelected us in 1984 to reverse course. At the heart of our efforts is one idea vindicated by 25 straight months of economic growth: Freedom and incentives unleash the drive and entrepreneurial genius that are the core of human progress. We have begun to increase the rewards for work, savings, and investment; reduce the increase in the cost and size of government and its interference in people's lives. We must simplify our tax system, make it more fair, and bring the rates down for all who work and earn. We must think anew and move with a new boldness, so every American who seeks work can find work; so the least among us shall have an equal chance to achieve the greatest things--to be heroes who heal our sick, feed the hungry, protect peace among nations, and leave this world a better place. The time has come for a new American emancipation--a great national drive to tear down economic barriers and liberate the spirit of enterprise in the most distressed areas of our country. My friends, together we can do this, and do it we must, so help me God.-- From new freedom will spring new opportunities for growth, a more productive, fulfilled and united people, and a stronger America--an America that will lead the technological revolution, and also open its mind and heart and soul to the treasures of literature, music, and poetry, and the values of faith, courage, and love. A dynamic economy, with more citizens working and paying taxes, will be our strongest tool to bring down budget deficits. But an almost unbroken 50 years of deficit spending has finally brought us to a time of reckoning. We have come to a turning point, a moment for hard decisions. I have asked the Cabinet and my staff a question, and now I put the same question to all of you: If not us, who? And if not now, when? It must be done by all of us going forward with a program aimed at reaching a balanced budget. We can then begin reducing the national debt. I will shortly submit a budget to the Congress aimed at freezing government program spending for the next year. Beyond that, we must take further steps to permanently control Government's power to tax and spend. We must act now to protect future generations from Government's desire to spend its citizens' money and tax them into servitude when the bills come due. Let us make it unconstitutional for the Federal Government to spend more than the Federal Government takes in. We have already started returning to the people and to State and local governments responsibilities better handled by them. Now, there is a place for the Federal Government in matters of social compassion. But our fundamental goals must be to reduce dependency and upgrade the dignity of those who are infirm or disadvantaged. And here a growing economy and support from family and community offer our best chance for a society where compassion is a way of life, where the old and infirm are cared for, the young and, yes, the unborn protected, and the unfortunate looked after and made self And there is another area where the Federal Government can play a part. As an older American, I remember a time when people of different race, creed, or ethnic origin in our land found hatred and prejudice installed in social custom and, yes, in law. There is no story more heartening in our history than the progress that we have made toward the "brotherhood of man" that God intended for us. Let us resolve there will be no turning back or hesitation on the road to an America rich in dignity and abundant with opportunity for all our citizens. Let us resolve that we the people will build an American opportunity society in which all of us--white and black, rich and poor, young and old--will go forward together arm in arm. Again, let us remember that though our heritage is one of blood lines from every corner of the Earth, we are all Americans pledged to carry on this last, best hope of man on Earth. I have spoken of our domestic goals and the limitations which we should put on our National Government. Now let me turn to a task which is the primary responsibility of National Government-the safety and security of our people. Today, we utter no prayer more fervently than the ancient prayer for peace on Earth. Yet history has shown that peace will not come, nor will our freedom be preserved, by good will alone. There are those in the world who scorn our vision of human dignity and freedom. One nation, the Soviet Union, has conducted the greatest military buildup in the history of man, building arsenals of awesome offensive weapons. We have made progress in restoring our defense capability. But much remains to be done. There must be no wavering by us, nor any doubts by others, that America will meet her responsibilities to remain free, secure, and at peace. There is only one way safely and legitimately to reduce the cost of national security, and that is to reduce the need for it. And this we are trying to do in negotiations with the Soviet Union. We are not just discussing limits on a further increase of nuclear weapons. We seek, instead, to reduce their number. We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth. Now, for decades, we and the Soviets have lived under the threat of mutual assured destruction; if either resorted to the use of nuclear weapons, the other could retaliate and destroy the one who had started it. Is there either logic or morality in believing that if one side threatens to kill tens of millions of our people, our only recourse is to threaten killing tens of millions of theirs? I have approved a research program to find, if we can, a security shield that would destroy nuclear missiles before they reach their target. It wouldn't kill people, it would destroy weapons. It wouldn't militarize space, it would help demilitarize the arsenals of Earth. It would render nuclear weapons obsolete. We will meet with the Soviets, hoping that we can agree on a way to rid the world of the threat of nuclear destruction. We strive for peace and security, heartened by the changes all around us. Since the turn of the century, the number of democracies in the world has grown fourfold. Human freedom is on the march, and nowhere more so than our own hemisphere. Freedom is one of the deepest and noblest aspirations of the human spirit. People, worldwide, hunger for the right of self-determination, for those inalienable rights that make for human dignity and progress. America must remain freedom's staunchest friend, for freedom is our best ally. And it is the world's only hope, to conquer poverty and preserve peace. Every blow we inflict against poverty will be a blow against its dark allies of oppression and war. Every victory for human freedom will be a victory for world peace. So we go forward today, a nation still mighty in its youth and powerful in its purpose. With our alliances strengthened, with our economy leading the world to a new age of economic expansion, we look forward to a world rich in possibilities. And all this because we have worked and acted together, not as members of political parties, but as Americans. My friends, we live in a world that is lit by lightning. So much is changing and will change, but so much endures, and transcends time. History is a ribbon, always unfurling; history is a journey. And as we continue our journey, we think of those who traveled before us. We stand together again at the steps of this symbol of our democracy--or we would have been standing at the steps if it hadn't gotten so cold. Now we are standing inside this symbol of our democracy. Now we hear again the echoes of our past: a general falls to his knees in the hard snow of Valley Forge; a lonely President paces the darkened halls, and ponders his struggle to preserve the Union; the men of the Alamo call out encouragement to each other; a settler pushes west and sings a song, and the song echoes out forever and fills the unknowing air. It is the American sound. It is hopeful, big-hearted, idealistic, daring, decent, and fair. That's our heritage; that is our song. We sing it still. For all our problems, our differences, we are together as of old, as we raise our voices to the God who is the Author of this most tender music. And may He continue to hold us close as we fill the world with our sound--sound in unity, affection, and love--one people under God, dedicated to the dream of freedom that He has placed in the human heart, called upon now to pass that dream on to a waiting and hopeful world. God bless you and may God bless America. Source: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/reagan2.asp

October 03, 2000   MODERATOR: Good evening from the Clark Athletic Center at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. I'm Jim Lehrer of the NewsHour on PBS, and I welcome you to the first of three 90-minute debates between the Democratic candidate for president, Vice President Al Gore and the Republican candidate, Governor George W. Bush of Texas. The debates are sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates and they will be conducted within formats agreed to between the two campaigns. We'll have the candidates at podiums. No answer to a question can exceed two minutes. Rebuttal is limited to one minute. But as moderator I have the option to follow up and extend any give and take any three-and-a-half minutes. Even then, no single answer can exceed two minutes. The candidates under their rules may not question each other directly. There will be no opening statements, but each candidate may have up to two minutes for a closing statement. The questions and the subjects were chosen by me alone. I have told no one from the two campaigns, or the Commission, or anyone else involved what they are. There is a small audience in the hall tonight. They are not here to participate, only to listen. I have asked, and they have agreed, to remain silent for the next 90 minutes. Except for right now, when they will applaud as we welcome the two candidates, Governor Bush and Vice President Gore. (Applause) MODERATOR: And now the first question as determined by a flip of a coin, it goes to Vice President Gore. Vice President Gore, you have questioned whether Governor Bush has the experience to be President of the United States. What exactly do you mean? GORE: Well, Jim, first of all, I would like to thank the sponsors of this debate and the people of Boston for hosting the debate. I would like to thank Governor Bush for participating, and I would like to say I'm happy to be here with Tipper and our family. I have actually not questioned Governor Bush's experience. I have questioned his proposals. And here is why. I think this is a very important moment for our country. We have achieved extraordinary prosperity. And in this election, America has to make an important choice. Will we use our prosperity to enrich not just the few, but all of our families? I believe we have to make the right and responsible choices. If I'm entrusted with the presidency, here are the choices that I will make. I will balance the budget every year. I will pay down the national debt. I will put Medicare and Social Security in a lockbox and protect them. And I will cut taxes for middle-class families. I believe it's important to resist the temptation to squander our surplus. If we make the right choices, we can have a prosperity that endures and enriches all of our people. If I'm entrusted with the presidency, I will help parents and strengthen families because, you know, if we have prosperity that grows and grows, we still won't be successful unless we strengthen families by, for example, ensuring that children can always go to schools that are safe. By giving parents the tools to protect their children against cultural pollution. I will make sure that we invest in our country and our families. And I mean investing in education, health care, the environment, and middle-class tax cuts and retirement security. That is my agenda and that is why I think that it's not just a question of experience. MODERATOR: Governor Bush, one minute rebuttal. BUSH: Well, we do come from different places. I come from being a West Texas. The governor is the chief executive officer. We know how to set agendas as a governor. I think you'll find the difference reflected in our budgets. I want to take one-half of the surplus and dedicate it to Social Security. One-quarter of the surplus for important projects, and I want to send one-quarter of the surplus back to the people who pay the bills. I want everybody who pays taxes to have their tax rates cut. And that stands in contrast to my worthy opponent's plan, which will increase the size of government dramatically. His plan is three times larger than President Clinton's proposed plan eight years ago. It is a plan that will have 200 new programs -- expanded programs and creates 20,000 new bureaucrats. It it empowers Washington. My vision is to empower Americans to be able to make decisions for themselves in their own lives. MODERATOR: So I take it by your answer, then, Mr. Vice President, in an interview recently with the "New York Times" when you said that you questioned whether or not Governor Bush has experience enough to be president, you were talking about strictly policy differences. GORE: Yes, Jim. I said that his tax cut plan, for example, raises the question of whether it's the right choice for the country. And let me give you an example of what I mean. Under Governor Bush's tax cut proposal, he would spend more money on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% than all of the new spending that he proposes for education, health care, prescription drug and national defense all combined. Now, I think those are the wrong priorities. Now, under my proposal, for every dollar that I propose in spending for things like education and health care, I will put another dollar into middle class tax cuts. And for every dollar that I spend in those two categories, I'll put $2 toward paying down the national debt. I think it's very important to keep the debt going down and completely eliminate it. And I also think it's very important to go to the next stage of welfare reform. Our country has cut the welfare rolls in half. I fought hard from my days in the Senate and as vice president to cut the welfare rolls and we've moved millions of people in America into good jobs. But it's now time for the next stage of welfare reform, and include fathers and not only mothers. MODERATOR: We're going to get a lot of those. BUSH: Let me just say that obviously tonight we're going to hear some phony numbers about what I think and what we ought to do. People need to know that over the next ten years it is going to be $25 trillion of revenue that comes into our Treasury and we anticipate spending $21 trillion. And my plan say why don't we pass 1.3 trillion of that back to the people who pay the bills? Surely we can afford 5% of the $25 trillion that are coming into the treasury to the hard working people that pay the bills. There is a difference of opinion. My opponent thinks the government -- the surplus is the government's money. That's not what I think. I think it's the hard-working people of America's money and I want to share some of that money with you so you have more money to build and save and dream for your families. It's a difference of opinion. It's a difference between government making decisions for you and you getting more of your money to make decisions for yourself. MODERATOR: Let me just follow up one quick question. When you hear Vice President Gore question your experience, do you read it the same way, that he's talking about policy differences only? BUSH: Yes. I take him for his word. Look, I fully recognize I'm not of Washington. I'm from Texas. And he's got a lot of experience, but so do I. And I've been the chief executive officer of the second biggest state in the union. I have a proud record of working with both Republicans and Democrats, which is what our nation needs. Somebody that can come to Washington and say let's forget all the finger pointing and get positive things done on Medicare, prescription drugs, Social Security, and so I take him for his word. GORE: Jim, if I could just respond. I know that. The governor used the phrase phony numbers, but if you look at the plan and add the numbers up, these numbers are correct. He spends more money for tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% than all of his new spending proposals for health care, prescription drug, education and national defense all combined. I agree that the surplus is the American people's money, it's your money. That's why I don't think we should give nearly half of it to the wealthiest 1%, because the other 99% have had an awful lot to do with building the surplus in our prosperity. MODERATOR: Three-and-a-half minutes is up. New question. Governor Bush, you have a question. This is a companion question to the question I asked Vice President Gore. You have questioned whether Vice President Gore has demonstrated the leadership qualities necessary to be President of the United States. What do you mean by that? BUSH: Actually what I've said, Jim. I've said that eight years ago they campaigned on prescription drugs for seniors. And four years ago they campaigned on getting prescription drugs for seniors. And now they're campaigning on getting prescription drugs for seniors. It seems like they can't get it done. Now, they may blame other folks, but it's time to get somebody in Washington who is going to work with both Republicans and Democrats to get some positive things done when it comes to our seniors. And so what I've said is that there's been some missed opportunities. They've had a chance. They've had a chance to form consensus. I've go a plan on Medicare, for example, that's a two-stage plan that says we'll have immediate help for seniors and what I call immediately Helping Hand, a $48 billion program. But I also want to say to seniors, if you're happy with Medicare the way it is, fine, you can stay in the program. But we're going to give you additional choices like they give federal employees in the federal employee health plan. They have a variety of choices to choose, so should seniors. And my point has been, as opposed to politicizing an issue like Medicare, in other words, holding it up hoping somebody bites it and try to clobber them over the head for political purposes, this year it's time to get it done once and for all. That's what I've been critical about the administration for. Same with Social Security. I think there was a good opportunity to bring Republicans and Democrats together to reform the Social Security system so seniors will never go without. Those on Social Security today will have their promise made, but also to give younger workers the option at their choice of being able to manage some of their own money in the private sector to make sure there's a Social Security system around tomorrow. There are a lot of young workers at our rallies we go to that when they hear I'll trust them at their option to be able to manage, under certain guidelines, some of their own money to get a better rate of return so that they'll have a retirement plan in the future, they begin to nod their heads and they want a different attitude in Washington. MODERATOR: One minute rebuttal. GORE: Well, Jim, under my plan all seniors will get prescription drugs under Medicare. The governor has described Medicare as a government HMO. It's not, and let me explain the difference. Under the Medicare prescription drug proposal I'm making, here is how it works, you go to your own doctor. Your doctor chooses your prescription. No HMO or insurance company can take those choices away from you. Then you go to your own pharmacy. You fill the prescription and Medicare pays half the cost. If you're in a very poor family or if you have very high costs, Medicare will pay all the costs, a $25 premium, and much better benefits than you can possibly find in the private sector. Now here is the contrast. 95% of all seniors would get no help whatsoever under my opponent's plan for the first four or five years. Now, one thing I don't understand, Jim, is why is it that the wealthiest 1% get their tax cuts the first year, but 95% of seniors have to wait four to five years before they get a single penny? BUSH: I guess my answer to that is the man is running on Medi-scare. Trying to frighten people into the voting booth. It's not what I think and it's not my intentions and not my plan. I want all seniors to have prescription drugs in Medicare. We need to reform Medicare. This administration has failed to do it. Seniors will have not only a Medicare plan where the poor seniors will have prescription drugs paid for, but there will be a variety of options. The current system today has meant a lot for a lot of seniors, and I really appreciate the intent of the current system. If you're happy with the system you can stay in it. There are a lot of procedures that haven't kept up in Medicare with the current times. No prescription drug benefits, no drug therapy, no preventative medicines, no vision care. We need to have a modern system to help seniors, and the idea of supporting a federally controlled 132,000-page document bureaucracy as being a compassionate way for seniors, and the only compassionate source of care for seniors is not my vision. We ought to give seniors more options. I believe we ought to make the system work better. I know this. I know it will require a different kind of leader to go to Washington to say to both Republicans and Democrats, let's come together. You've had your chance, Vice President, you've been there for eight years and nothing has been done. My point is, is that my plan not only trusts seniors with options, my plan sets aside $3.4 trillion for Medicare over the next ten years. My plan also says it requires a new approach in Washington, D.C. It's going to require somebody who can work across the partisan divide. GORE: If I could respond to that. Under my plan I will put Medicare in an iron clad lockbox and prevent the money from being used for anything other than Medicare. The governor has declined to endorse that idea even though the Republican as well as Democratic leaders in Congress have endorsed it. I would be interested to see if he would say this evening he'll put Medicare in a lockbox. $100 billion comes out of Medicare just for the wealthiest 1% in the tax cut. Now here is the difference. Some people who say the word reform actually mean cuts. Under the governor's plan, if you kept the same fee for service that you have now under Medicare, your premiums would go up by between 18% and 47%, and that is the study of the Congressional plan that he's modeled his proposal on by the Medicare actuaries. Let me give you one quick example. There is a man here tonight named George McKinney from Milwaukee. He's 70 years old, has high blood pressure, his wife has heart trouble. They have an income of $25,000 a year. They can't pay for their prescription drugs. They're some of the ones that go to Canada regularly in order to get their prescription drugs. Under my plan, half of their costs would be paid right away. Under Governor Bush's plan, they would get not one penny for four to five years and then they would be forced to go into an HMO or to an insurance company and ask them for coverage, but there would be no limit on the premiums or the deductibles or any of the terms and conditions. BUSH: I cannot let this go by, the old-style Washington politics, if we're going to scare you in the voting booth. Under my plan the man gets immediate help with prescription drugs. It's called Immediate Helping Hand. Instead of squabbling and finger pointing, he gets immediate help. Let me say something. MODERATOR: Your -- GORE: They get $25,000 a year income, that makes them ineligible. BUSH: Look, this is a man who has great numbers. He talks about numbers. I'm beginning to think not only did he invent the Internet, but he invented the calculator. It's fuzzy math. It's a scaring -- he's trying to scare people in the voting booth. Under my tax plan that he continues to criticize, I set one-third. The federal government should take no more than a third of anybody's check. But I also dropped the bottom rate from 15% to 10%. Because by far the vast majority of the help goes to people at the bottom end of the economic ladder. If you're a family of four in Massachusetts, making $50,000, you get a 50% cut in the federal income taxes you pay. It's from $4000 to about $2000. Now, the difference in our plans is I want that $2,000 to go to you, and the vice president would like to be spending the $2,000 on your behalf. MODERATOR: One quick thing, gentlemen. These are your rules. I'm doing my best. We're way over the three minutes. I have no problems with it. We're over the three-and-a-half. Do you want to have a quick response? We're almost to five minutes on this. GORE: It's just clear you can go to the website and look. If you make more than $25,000 a year you don't get a penny of help under the Bush prescription drug proposal for at least four to five years, and then you're pushed into a Medicare -- into an HMO or insurance company plan, and there's no limit on the premiums or the deductibles or any of the conditions. And the insurance companies say it won't work and they won't offer these plans. MODERATOR: Let me ask you both this and we'll move on on the subject. As a practical matter, both of you want to bring prescription drugs to seniors, correct? GORE: Correct. BUSH: Correct. GORE: The difference is I want to bring it to 100% and he wants to bring it to 5%. BUSH: That's totally false for him to stand up here and say that. Let me make sure the seniors hear me loud and clear. They have had their chance to get something done. I'm going to work with Democrats and Republicans to reform the system. All seniors will be covered, all seniors will have their prescription drugs paid for, and in the meantime, we'll have a plan to help poor seniors and in the meantime it could be one year or two years. GORE: Let me call your attention to the key word there. He said all poor seniors. BUSH: Wait a minute. All seniors are covered under prescription drugs in my plan. GORE: In the first year? BUSH: If we can get it done in the first year, you bet. GORE: It's a two-phase plan. For the first four years -- it takes a year to pass it and for the first four years only the poor are covered. Middle class seniors like George McKinney and his wife are not covered for four to five years. MODERATOR: I have an idea. If you have any more to say about this, you can say it in your closing statements and we'll move on, okay? New question. Vice President Gore. How would you contrast your approach to preventing future oil price and supply problems like we have now to the approach of Governor Bush? GORE: Excellent question. And here is the simple difference. My plan has not only a short-term component, but also a long-term component. And it focuses not only on increasing the supply, which I think we have to do, but also on working on the consumption side. Now, in the short-term we have to free ourselves from the domination of the big oil companies that have the ability to manipulate the price from OPEC when they want to raise the price. And in the long-term we have to give new incentives for the development of domestic resources like deep gas in the western Gulf, like stripper wells for oil, but also renewable sources of energy. And domestic sources that are cleaner and better. And I'm proposing a plan that will give tax credits and tax incentives for the rapid development of new kinds of cars and trucks and buses and factories and boilers and furnaces that don't have as much pollution, that don't burn as much energy, and that help us get out on the cutting edge of the new technologies that will create millions of new jobs. Because, when we sell these new products here, we'll then be able to sell them overseas. There is a ravenous demand for them overseas. Now, another big difference is Governor Bush is proposing to open up some of our most precious environmental treasures, like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for the big oil companies to go in and start producing oil there. I think that is the wrong choice. It would only give us a few months' worth of oil and the oil wouldn't start flowing for many years into the future. I don't think it's a fair price to pay to destroy precious parts of America's environment. We have to bet on the future and move beyond the current technologies to have a whole new generation of more efficient, cleaner, energy technology. BUSH: It's an issue I know a lot about. I was a small oil person for a while in west Texas. This is an administration that's had no plan. And all of a sudden the results of having no plan have caught up with America. First and foremost we have to fully fund -- heat which is a way to help low income people in the east to pay for high fuel bills. We need an active exploration incentive in America. We need to explore at home. You bet I want to open up a small part of Alaska. When that field is online it will produce one million barrels a day. Today we import one million barrels from Saddam Hussein. I would rather that a million come from our own hemisphere, have it come from our own country as opposed to Saddam Hussein. I want to develop the coal resources in America. Have clean coal technologies. We better start exploring it or otherwise we'll be in deep trouble in the future because of our dependency upon foreign sources of crude. MODERATOR: So if somebody is watching tonight and listening to what the two of you just said, is it fair to say, okay, the differences between Governor Bush and Vice President Gore are as follows. You're for doing something on the consumption end and you're for doing something on the production end? GORE: Let me clarify. I'm for doing something both on the supply side and production side and on the consumption side. Let me say, that I found one thing in Governor Bush's answer that we certainly agree on, and that's the low income heating assistance program. I commend you for supporting that. I worked to get $400 million just a couple of weeks ago. And to establish a permanent home heating oil reserve here in the northeast. Now, as for the proposals that I've worked for for renewables and conservation and efficiencies and new technologies for the last few years in the Congress, we've faced a lot of opposition to them. They've only approved about 10% of the agenda I've helped to send up there. We need to get serious about this energy crisis, both in the Congress and in the White House, and if you entrust me with the presidency, I will tackle this problem and focus on new technologies that will make us less dependent on big oil or foreign oil. MODERATOR: How would you draw the difference? BUSH: Well I would first say he should have been tackling it for the last seven years. The difference is we need to explore at home. And the vice president doesn't believe in exploration, for example, in Alaska. There's a lot of shut-in gas that we need to be moving out of Alaska by pipeline. There's an interesting issue up in the northwest as well. Do we remove dams that produce hydroelectric energy? I'm against removing dams in the northwest. We need to keep that in line. I was in coal country in West Virginia. There is an abundant supply of coal in this country. I know we can do a better job of clean coal technologies. I'm going to ask the Congress for $2 billion to make sure we have the cleanest coal technologies in the world. In the short-term we need to get after it here in America. We need to explore our resources and we need to develop our reservoirs of domestic production. We also need to have a hemispheric energy policy where Canada, Mexico and the United States come together. I brought this up recently with the newly elected president in Mexico, he's a man I know from Mexico. I talked to him about how best to expedite the exploration of natural gas in Mexico and transport it up to the United States so we become less dependent on foreign sources of crude oil. It's a major problem facing America. The administration did not deal with it. It's time for a new administration to deal with the energy problem. GORE: I found a couple of other things we agree upon. We may not find that many this evening, so I wanted to emphasize. I strongly support new investments in clean coal technology. I made a proposal three months ago on this. And also domestic exploration yes, but not in the environmental treasures of our country. We don't have to do that. That's the wrong choice. I know the oil companies have been itching to do that, but it is not the right thing to do. BUSH: It's the right thing for the consumers. Less dependency upon foreign sources of crude is good for consumers. And we can do so in an environmentally friendly way. MODERATOR: New question, new subject. Governor Bush. If elected president, would you try to overturn the FDA's approval last week of the abortion pill RU-486? BUSH: I don't think a president can do that. I was disappointed in the ruling because I think abortions ought to be more rare in America, and I'm worried that that pill will create more abortions and cause more people to have abortions. This is a very important topic and it's a very sensitive topic, because a lot of good people disagree on the issue. I think what the next president ought to do is to promote a culture of life in America. Life of the elderly and life of those women all across the country. Life of the unborn. As a matter of fact, I think a noble goal for this country is that every child, born or unborn, need to be protected by law and welcomed to life. I know we need to change a lot of minds before we get there in America. What I do believe is that we can find good, common ground on issues of parental consent or parental notification. I know we need to ban partial birth abortions. This is a place where my opponent and I have strong disagreement. I believe banning partial birth abortions would be a positive step to reducing the number of abortions in America. It is an issue that will require a new attitude. We've been battling over abortion for a long period of time. Surely this nation can come together to promote the value of life. Surely we can fight off these laws that will encourage doctors to -- to allow doctors to take the lives of our seniors. Surely we can work together to create a cultural life so some of these youngsters who feel like they can take a neighbor's life with a gun will understand that that's not the way America is meant to be. Surely we can find common ground to reduce the number of abortions in America. As to the drug itself, I mentioned I was disappointed. I hope the FDA took its time to make sure that American women will be safe who use this drug. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore? GORE: Well, Jim, the FDA took 12 years, and I do support that decision. They determined it was medically safe for the women who use that drug. This is indeed a very important issue. First of all on the issue of partial birth or so-called late-term abortion, I would sign a law banning that procedure, provided that doctors have the ability to save a woman's life or to act if her health is severely at risk. That's not the main issue. The main issue is whether or not the Roe v. Wade decision is going to be overturned. I support a woman's right to choose. My opponent does not. It is important because the next president is going to appoint three and maybe even four justices of the Supreme Court. And Governor Bush has declared to the anti-choice group that he will appoint justices in the mold of Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who are known for being the most vigorous opponents of a woman's right to choose. Here is the difference. He trusts the government to order a woman to do what it thinks she ought to do. I trust women to make the decisions that affect their lives, their destinies and their bodies. And I think a woman's right to choose ought to be protected and defended. MODERATOR: Governor, we'll go to the Supreme Court question in a moment, but make sure I understand your position on RU-486. If you're elected president, you won't support legislation to overturn this? BUSH: I don't think a president can unilaterally overturn it. The FDA has made its decision. MODERATOR: That means you wouldn't, through appointments, to the FDA and ask them to -- BUSH: I think once a decision has been made, it's been made unless it's proven to be unsafe to women. GORE: Jim, the question you asked, if I heard you correctly, was would he support legislation to overturn it. And if I heard the statement day before yesterday, you said you would order -- he said he would order his FDA appointee to review the decision. Now that sounds to me a little bit different. I just think that we ought to support the decision. BUSH: I said I would make sure that women would be safe who used the drug. MODERATOR: On the Supreme Court question. Should a voter assume -- you're pro-life. BUSH: I am pro-life. MODERATOR: Should a voter assume that all judicial appointments you make to the supreme court or any other court, federal court, will also be pro-life? BUSH: The voters should assume I have no litmus test on that issue or any other issue. Voters will know I'll put competent judges on the bench. People who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench for writing social policy. That is going to be a big difference between my opponent and me. I believe that the judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government. That they're appointed for life and that they ought to look at the Constitution as sacred. They shouldn't misuse their bench. I don't believe in liberal activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists. Those are the kind of judges I will appoint. I've named four in the State of Texas and ask the people to check out their qualifications, their deliberations. They're good, solid men and women who have made good, sound judgments on behalf of the people of Texas. MODERATOR: What kind of appointments should they expect from you? GORE: We both use similar language to reach an exactly opposite outcome. I don't favor a litmus test, but I know that there are ways to assess how a potential justice interprets the Constitution. And in my view, the Constitution ought to be interpreted as a document that grows with our country and our history. And I believe, for example, that there is a right of privacy in the Fourth Amendment. And when the phrase a strict constructionist is used and when the names of Scalia and Thomas are used as the benchmarks for who would be appointed, those are code words, and nobody should mistake this, for saying the governor would appoint people who would overturn Roe v. Wade. It's very clear to me. I would appoint people that have a philosophy that I think will be quite likely would uphold Roe v. Wade. MODERATOR: Is the vice president right? BUSH: It sounds like he's not very right tonight. I just told you the criteria on which I'll appoint judges. I have a record of appointing judges in the State of Texas. That's what a governor gets to do. A governor gets to name supreme court judges. He also reads all kinds of things into my tax plan and into my Medicare plan. I want the viewers out there to listen to what I have to say about it. MODERATOR: Reverse the question. What code phrases should we read by what you said about what kind of people you would appoint? GORE: It would be likely that they would uphold Roe v. Wade. I do believe it's wrong to use a litmus test. If you look at the history of a lower court judge's rulings, you can get a pretty good idea of how they'll interpret questions. A lot of questions are first impression, and these questions that have been seen many times come up in a new context and so -- but, you know, this is a very important issue. Because a lot of young women in this country take this right for granted and it could be lost. It is on the ballot in this election, make no mistake about it. BUSH: I'll tell you what kind of judges he'll put on. He'll put liberal activists justices who will use their bench to subvert the legislature, that's what he'll do. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, if President Milosevic of Yugoslavia refuses to leave office, what action, if any, should the United States take to get him out of there? GORE: Well, Milosevic has lost the election. His opponent, Kostunica, has won the election. It's overwhelming. Milosevic's government refuses to release the vote count. There's now a general strike going on. They're demonstrating. I think we should support the people of Serbia and Yugoslavia, as they call the Serbia plus Montenegro, and put pressure in every way possible to recognize the lawful outcome of the election. The people of Serbia have acted very bravely in kicking this guy out of office. Now he is trying to not release the votes and then go straight to a so-called runoff election without even announcing the results of the first vote. Now, we've made it clear, along with our allies, that when Milosevic leaves, then Serbia will be able to have a more normal relationship with the rest of the world. That is a very strong incentive that we've given them to do the right thing. Bear in mind also, Milosevic has been indicted as a war criminal and he should be held accountable for his actions. Now, we have to take measured steps because the sentiment within Serbia is, for understandable reasons, against the United States because their nationalism -- even if they don't like Milosevic, they still have some feelings lingering from the NATO action there. So we have to be intelligent in the way we go about it. But make no mistake about it, we should do everything we can to see that the will of the Serbian people expressed in this extraordinary election is done. And I hope that he'll be out of office very shortly. MODERATOR: Governor Bush, one minute. BUSH: Well, I'm pleased with the results of the election. As the vice president said, it's time for the man to go. It means that the United States must have a strong diplomatic hand with our friends in NATO. That's why it's important to make sure our alliances are as strong as they possibly can be to keep the pressure on Mr. Milosevic. But this will be an interesting moment for the Russians to step up and lead as well. Be a wonderful time for the Russians to step into the Balkans and convince Mr. Milosevic that it's in his best interest and his country's best interest. The Russians have sway in that part of the world. We would like to see the Russians use that sway to encourage democracy to take hold. It's an encouraging election. It's time for the man to leave. MODERATOR: What if he doesn't leave? What if all the diplomatic efforts, all the pressure and he still doesn't go? Is this the kind of thing, and be specific, that you as president would consider the use of U.S. military force to get him gone? GORE: In this particular situation, no. Bear in mind that we have a lot of sanctions in force against Serbia right now. And the people of Serbia know that they can escape all those sanctions if this guy is turned out of power. Now, I understand what the governor has said about asking the Russians to be involved, and under some circumstances that might be a good idea. But being as they have not yet been willing to recognize Kostunica as the lawful winner of the election, I'm not sure it's right for us to invite the president of Russia to mediate this -- this dispute there because we might not like the results that comes out of that. They currently favor going forward with a runoff election. I think that's the wrong thing. I think the governor's instinct is not necessarily bad because we have worked with the Russians in a constructive way in Kosovo, for example, to end the conflict there. But I think we need to be very careful in the present situation before we invite the Russians to play the lead role in mediating. BUSH: Well obviously we wouldn't use the Russians if they didn't agree with our answer, Mr. Vice President. Let me say this to you, I wouldn't use force. I wouldn't use force. MODERATOR: You wouldn't use force? BUSH: No. MODERATOR: Why not? BUSH: It's not in our national interest to use force. I would use pressure and diplomacy. There is a difference what the president did in Kosovo and this. It's up to the people in this region to take control of their country. MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally? BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously. And it starts with making sure we rebuild our military power. Morale in today's military is too low. We're having trouble meeting recruiting goals. We met the goals this year, but in the previous years we have not met recruiting goals. Some of our troops are not well-equipped. I believe we're overextended in too many places. And therefore I want to rebuild the military power. It starts with a billion dollar pay raise for the men and women who wear the uniform. A billion dollars more than the president recently signed into law. It's to make sure our troops are well-housed and well-equipped. Bonus plans to keep some of our high-skilled folks in the services and a commander in chief that sets the mission to fight and win war and prevent war from happening in the first place. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, one minute. GORE: I want to make it clear, our military is the strongest, best-trained, best-equipped, best-led fighting force in the world and in the history of the world. Nobody should have any doubt about that, least of all our adversaries or potential adversaries. If you entrust me with the presidency, I will do whatever is necessary in order to make sure our forces stay the strongest in the world. In fact, in my ten-year budget proposal I've set aside more than twice as much for this purpose as Governor Bush has in his proposal. Now, I think we should be reluctant to get involved in someplace in a foreign country. But if our national security is at stake, if we have allies, if we've tried every other course, if we're sure military action will succeed, and if the costs are proportionate to the benefits, we should get involved. Now, just because we don't want to get involved everywhere doesn't mean we should back off anywhere it comes up. I disagree with the proposal that maybe only when oil supplies are at stake that our national security is at risk. I think that there are situations like in Bosnia or Kosovo where there's a genocide, where our national security is at stake there. BUSH: I agree our military is the strongest in the world today, that's not the question. The question is will it be the strongest in the years to come? Everywhere I go on the campaign trail I see moms and dads whose son or daughter may wear the uniform and they tell me about how discouraged their son or daughter may be. A recent poll was taken among 1,000 enlisted personnel, as well as officers, over half of whom will leave the service when their time of enlistment is up. The captains are leaving the service. There is a problem. And it's going to require a new commander in chief to rebuild the military power. I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwartzkopf recently stood by me side and agreed with me. If we don't have a clear vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, how should the voters go about deciding which one of you is better suited to make the kinds of decisions, whether it's Milosevic or whatever, in the military and foreign policy area? GORE: Well, they should look at our proposals and look at us as people and make up their own minds. When I was a young man, I volunteered for the Army. I served my country in Vietnam. My father was a senator who strongly opposed the Vietnam War. I went to college in this great city, and most of my peers felt against the war as I did. But I went anyway because I knew if I didn't, somebody else in the small town of Carthage, Tennessee, would have to go in my place. I served for eight years in the House of Representatives and I served on the Intelligence Committee, specialized in looking at arms control. I served for eight years in the United States Senate and served on the Armed Services Committee. For the last eight years I've served on the National Security Council, and when the conflict came up in Bosnia, I saw a genocide in the heart of Europe with the most violent war on the continent of Europe since World War II. Look, that's where World War I started. My uncle was a victim of poisonous gas there. Millions of Americans saw the results of that conflict. We have to be willing to make good, sound judgments. Incidentally, I know the value of making sure our troops have the latest technology. The governor has proposed skipping the next generation of weapons. I think that's a big mistake, because I think we have to stay at the cutting edge. MODERATOR: Governor, how would you advise the voters to make the decision on this issue? BUSH: I think you've got to look at how one has handled responsibility in office. Whether or not it's -- the same in domestic policy as well. Whether or not you have the capacity to convince people to follow? Whether or not one makes decisions based on sound principles or whether or not you rely upon polls or focus groups on how to decide what the course of action is. We have too much polling and focus groups going on in Washington today. We need decisions made on sound principles. I've been the governor of a big state. I think one of the hallmarks of my relationship in Austin, Texas, is that I've had the capacity to work with both Republicans and Democrats. I think that's an important part of leadership. I think what it means to build consensus. I've shown I know how to do so. Tonight in the audience there's one elected state senator who is a Democrat, a former state-wide officer who is a Democrat, a lot of Democrats who are here in the debate to -- because they want to show their support that shows I know how to lead. And so the fundamental answer to your question, who can lead and who's shown the ability to get things done? GORE: If I could say one thing. MODERATOR: We are way over three-and-a-half minutes. Go ahead. GORE: One of the key points in foreign policy and national security policy is the need to establish the old-fashioned principle that politics ought to stop at the water's edge. When I was in the United States Congress, I worked with former President Reagan. When I was in the United States Senate I worked with former President Bush, your father. I was one of only a few Democrats in the Senate to support the Persian Gulf War. I think bipartisanship is a national asset. We have to find ways to reestablish it in foreign policy and national security policy. MODERATOR: Do you have a problem with that? BUSH: Yeah. Why haven't they done it in seven years? MODERATOR: New subject. New question. Should the voters of this election, Vice President Gore, see this in the domestic area as a major choice between competing political philosophies? GORE: Oh, absolutely. This is a very important moment in the history of our country. Look, we've got the biggest surpluses in all of American history. The key question that has to be answered in this election is will we use that prosperity wisely in a way that benefits all of our people and doesn't go just to the few. Almost half of all the tax cut benefits, as I said under Governor Bush's plan, go to the wealthiest 1%. I think we have to make the right and responsible choices. I think we have to invest in education, protecting the environment, health care, a prescription drug benefit that goes to all seniors, not just to the poor, under Medicare, not relying on HMOs and insurance companies. I think that we have to help parents and strengthen families by dealing with the kind of inappropriate entertainment material that families are just heart sick that their children are exposed to. I think we've got to have welfare reform taken to the next stage. I think that we have got to balance the budget every single year, pay down the national debt and, in fact, under my proposal the national debt will be completely eliminated by the year 2012. I think we need to put Medicare and Social Security in a lockbox. The governor will not put Medicare in a lockbox. I don't think it should be used as a piggy bank for other programs. I think it needs to be moved out of the budget and protected. I'll veto anything that takes money out of Social Security or Medicare for anything other than Social Security or Medicare. Now, the priorities are just very different. I'll give you a couple of examples. For every new dollar that I propose for spending on health care, Governor Bush spends $3 for a tax cut for the wealthiest 1%. Now, for every dollar that I propose to spend on education, he spends $5 on a tax cut for the wealthiest 1%. Those are very clear differences. MODERATOR: Governor, one minute. BUSH: The man is practicing fuzzy math again. There's differences. Under Vice President Gore's plan, he is going to grow the federal government in the largest increase since Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1965. We're talking about a massive government, folks. We're talking about adding to or increasing 200 programs, 20,000 new bureaucrats. Imagine how many IRS agents it is going to take to be able to figure out his targeted tax cut for the middle class that excludes 50 million Americans. There is a huge difference in this campaign. He says he's going to give you tax cuts. 50 million of you won't receive it. He said in his speech he wants to make sure the right people get tax relief. That's not the role of a president to decide right and wrong. Everybody who pays taxes ought to get tax relief. After my plan is in place, the wealthiest Americans will pay more tax, the poorest of Americans, six million families, won't pay any tax at all. It's a huge difference. A difference between big exploding federal government that wants to think on your behalf and a plan that meets priorities and liberates working people to be able to make decisions on your own. GORE: You haven't heard the governor deny these numbers. He's called them phony and fuzzy. The fact remains almost 30% of his proposed tax cut goes to -- only to Americans that make more than $1 million per year. More money goes to the -- can I have a rebuttal here? MODERATOR: I want to see if he buys that. BUSH: Let me tell you what the facts are. The facts are after my plan, the wealthiest of Americans pay more taxes of the percentage of the whole than they do today. Secondly, if you're a family of four making $50,000 in Massachusetts, you get a 50% tax cut. Let me give you one example. A family in Allentown, Pennsylvania, I campaigned with them the other day. They make $51,000 combined income, they pay about $3500 in taxes. Under my plan, they get $1800 of tax relief. Under Vice President Gore's plan, they get $145 of tax relief. Now you tell me who stands on the side of the fence. You ask whose plan makes more sense. There is a difference of opinion. He would rather spend the family's $1800 and I would rather the family spend that money. GORE: No, I don't, and I'm not going to go to calling names on his facts. I'm just gonna tell you what the real facts are. The analysis that he's talking about leaves out more than half of the tax cuts that I have proposed. And if you just add the numbers up, he still hasn't denied it, he spends more money on a tax cut for the wealthiest 1% than all his new proposals for all his other things combined. Now those are the wrong priorities. $665 billion over ten years for the wealthiest 1%. As I said, almost 30% of it goes to Americans that make more than $1 million per year. Every middle class family is eligible for a tax cut under my proposal. Let me give you some specific examples. I believe college tuition up to $10,000 per year ought to be tax deductible so middle-class families can choose to send their children to college. I believe all senior citizens should be able to choose their own doctors and get prescription drugs from their own pharmacists with Medicare paying half the bill. I believe parents need more public and charter school choice to send their kids to a safe school. We need to make education the number one priority in our country and treat teachers like the professionals that they are. And that's why I have made it a number one priority in my budget. BUSH: Let me talk about tax cuts one more time. It excludes 50 million Americans. GORE: Not so. BUSH: The marriage penalty. If you itemize your tax return, you get no marriage penalty relief. He picks and chooses. He decides who the right people are. It's a fundamental difference of opinion. I want my fellow Americans to hear one more time. We'll spend $25 trillion -- we'll collect $25 trillion in revenue in the next 10 years and spend $21 trillion. We need to send 5% back to you that pay the bills. I want to say something. This man has been disparaging my plan with all this Washington fuzzy math. If you're a single mother making $22,000 a year and you have two children, under this tax code, for every additional dollar you make, you pay a higher marginal rate on that dollar than someone making more than $200,000 a year, and that is not right. My plan drops the rate from 15% to 10% and increases the child credit from $500 to $1,000 to make the code more fair for everybody, not just a few, not just a handful. Everybody who pays taxes ought to get some relief. MODERATOR: Having cleared that up, we're going to a new question. Education. Governor Bush. Both of you have promised dramatically to change -- to change dramatically public education in this country. Of the public money spent on education, only 6% of that is federal money. You want to change 100% of the public education on 6% of the money, is it possible to change it? BUSH: We can make a huge difference by saying if you receive federal money we expect you to show results. Let me give you a story about public education, if I might. It's about Kipp Academy in Houston, Texas. A charter school run by some people from Teach For America. Young folks saying I'm going to do something good for my country. I want to teach. A guy named Michael runs the school. It is a school full of so-called at-risk children. It's how wer unfortunately label certain children. Basically it means they can't learn. It's a school of strong discipline and high standards. It's one of the best schools in Houston. Here are the key ingredients. High expectations, strong accountabily. What Michael says, don't put all these rules on us, just let us teach and hold us accountable for every grade. That's what we do. And as a result, these mainly Hispanic youngsters are some of the best learners in Houston, Texas. That's my vision for public education all around America. Many of you viewers don't know, but Laura and I sent our girls to public school. They went to Austin High School. And many of the public schools are meeting the call. But, unfortunately, a lot of schools are trapping children in schools that just won't teach and won't change. Here is the role of the federal government. One is to change Head Start to a reading program. Two is to say if you want to access reading money, you can do so. The goal is for every single child to learn to Read. there must by K-2 diagnostic teaching tools available. We have to consolidate the system to free the schools and encourage innovators. Let them reach out beyond the confines of the current structure to recruit teach-for-the-children type teachers. Four, we're going to say if you receive federal money, measure third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth grade. Show us if they are learning to read, write, add and subtract there will be bonus plans. If not, instead of continuing to subsidize failure, the money will go to -- the federal money will go to the parents for public school or charter school or tutorial or Catholic school. What I care about is children. And so does Michael Feinberg. And you know what? It can happen in America with the right kind of leadership. GORE: We agree on a couple of things on education. I strongly support new accountability, so does Governor Bush. I strongly support local control, so does Governor Bush. I'm in favor of testing as a way of measuring performance. Every school and every school district, have every state test the children. I've also proposed a voluntary national test in the fourth grade and eighth grade, and a form of testing the governor has not endorsed. I think that all new teachers ought to be tested, including in the subjects that they teach. We've got to recruit 100,000 new teachers. And I have budgeted for that. We've got to reduce the class size so that the student who walks in has more one-on-one time with the teacher. We ought to have universal pre-school and we ought to make college tuition tax deductible, up to $10,000 a year. I would like to tell you a quick story. I got a letter today as I left Sarasota, Florida. I'm here with a group of 13 people from around the country who helped me prepare. We had a great time. Two days ago we ate lunch at a restaurant. The guy that served us lunch gave me a letter today. His name is Randy Ellis. He has a 15-year-old daughter named Caley, who is in Sarasota High School. Her science class was supposed to be for 24 students. She's the 36th student in that classroom. They sent me a picture of her in the classroom. They can't squeeze another desk in for her, so she has to stand during class. I want the federal government, consistent with local control and new accountability, to make improvement of our schools the number one priority so Caley will have a desk and can sit down in a classroom where she can learn. MODERATOR: All right. So having heard the two of you, the voters have just heard the two of you, what is the difference? What is the choice between the two of you on education? BUSH: The first is, the difference is there is no new accountability measures in Vice President Gore's plan. He says he's for voluntary testing. You can't have voluntary testing. You must have mandatory testing. You must say that if you receive money you must show us whether or not children are learning to read and write and add and subtract. That's the difference. You may claim you've got mandatory testing but you don't, Mr. Vice President. That's a huge difference. Testing is the cornerstone of reform. You know how I know? Because it's the cornerstone of reform in the State of Texas. Republicans and Democrats came together and said what can we do to make our public education the best in the country? We've done a long way working together to do so. The cornerstone is to have strong accountability in return for money and in return for flexibility. We're going to ask you to show us whether or not -- we ask you to post the results on the Internet. We encourage parents to take a look at the comparative results of schools. We have a strong charter school movement that I signed the legislation to get started in the State of Texas. I believe if we find poor children trapped in schools that won't teach, we need to free the parents. We need to expand education savings accounts. Something that my vice presidential running mate supports. There's big differences. He won't support freeing local districts from the strings of federal money. GORE: First of all, I do have mandatory testing. I think the governor may not have heard what I said clearly. The voluntary national testing is in addition to the mandatory testing that we require of states. All schools, all school districts, students themselves, and required teacher testing, which goes a step farther than Governor Bush has been willing to go. Here are a couple of differences, though, Jim. Governor Bush is in favor of vouchers which take taxpayer money away from public schools and give them to private schools that are not accountable for how the money is used and don't have to take all applicants. Now, private schools play a great role in our society. All of our children have gone to both public schools and private schools. But I don't think private schools should have a right to take taxpayer money away from public schools at a time when Caley Ellis is standing in that classroom. Let me give you another example. I went to a school in Dade County, Florida where the facilities are so overcrowded the children have to eat lunch in shifts with the first shift for lunch starting at 9:30 in the morning. Look, this is a funding crisis all around the country. There are fewer parents of school-age children as a percentage of the voting population and there is the largest generation of students ever. We're in an information age when learning is more important than ever. 90% of our kids go to public schools. We have to make it the number one priority. Modernize our schools, reduce class size, recruit new teachers, give every child a chance to learn with one-on-one time in a quality -- high-quality, safe school. If it's a failing school, shut it down and reopen it under a new principal with a turnaround team of specialists the way Governor Jim Hunt does in North Carolina. Here is another difference. The governor, if it's a failing school, would leave the children in that failing school for three years and then give a little bit of money to the parents, a down payment on a down payment for private school tuition, and pretend that that would be enough for them to go out and go to a private school. It's an illusion. MODERATOR: Wait a minute, Governor. BUSH: Okay. First of all, most of this is at the state level. See, here is the mentality. I'm going to make the state do this and make the state do that. All I'm saying is if you spend money, show us results and test every year, which you do not do, Mr. Vice President. You don't test every year. You can say you do to the cameras but you don't, unless you've changed your plan. GORE: I didn't say that. BUSH: You need to test every year. That's why you determine if children are progressing to excellence. Secondly, one of the things that we have to be careful about in politics is throwing money at a system that has not yet been reformed. More money is needed and I spend more money, but step one is to make sure we reform the system to have the system in place that leaves no child behind. Stop this business about asking gosh, how old are you? If you're 10 we'll put you here, 12 you put here. Start asking the question, what do you know? If you don't know what you're supposed to know, we'll make sure you do early before it's too late. MODERATOR: New question. We've been talking about a lot of specific issues. It's often said that in the final analysis about 90% of being the President of the United States is dealing with the unexpected, not with issues that came up in the campaign. Vice President Gore, can you point to a decision, an action you have taken, that illustrates your ability to handle the unexpected, the crisis under fire? GORE: When the action in Kosovo was dragging on and we were searching for a solution to the problem, our country had defeated the adversary on the battlefield without a single American life being lost in combat. But the dictator Milosevic was hanging on. I invited the former prime minister of Russia to my house and took a risk in asking him to get personally involved, along with the head of Finland, to go to Belgrade and to take a set of proposals from the United States that would constitute basically a surrender by Serbia. But it was a calculated risk that paid off. Now, I could probably give you some other examples of decisions over the last 24 years. I have been in public service for 24 years, Jim. And throughout all that time the people I have fought for have been the middle-class families, and I have been willing to stand up to powerful interests like the big insurance companies, the drug companies, the HMOs, the oil companies. They have good people and they play constructive roles sometimes, but sometimes they get too much power. I cast my lot with the people even when it means that you have to stand up to some powerful interests who are trying to turn the -- the policies and the laws to their advantage. You can see it in this campaign. The big drug companies support Governor Bush's prescription drug proposal. They oppose mine because they don't want to get Medicare involved because they're afraid that Medicare will negotiate lower prices for seniors who currently pay the highest prices of all. MODERATOR: Governor Bush? BUSH: I've been standing up to big business, Hollywood, big trial lawyers. Was -- the question about emergencies, wasn't it? MODERATOR: It was about -- okay. BUSH: You know, as governor, one of the things you have to deal with is catastrophe. I can remember the fires that swept Parker County, Texas. I remember the floods that swept our state. I remember going down to Del Rio, Texas. I have to pay the administration a compliment. James Lee Witt of FEMA has done a really good job of working with governors during times of crisis. But that's the time when you're tested not only -- it's the time to test your metal, a time to test your heart when you see people whose lives have been turned upside down. It broke my heart to go to the flood scene in Del Rio where a fellow and his family got completely uprooted. The only thing I knew was to got aid as quickly as possible with state and federal help, and to put my arms around the man and his family and cry with them. That's what governors do. They are often on the front line of catastrophic situations. MODERATOR: New question. There can be all kinds of crises, Governor. A questions for you. There could be a crisis, for instance, in the financial area, the stock market could take a tumble, there could be a failure of a major financial institution. What is your general attitude toward government intervention in such events? BUSH: Well, it depends, obviously. But what I would do first and foremost, is I would get in touch with the Federal Reserve Chairman, Allen Greenspan, to find out all the facts and all the circumstances. I would have my Secretary of the Treasury be in touch with the financial centers not only here, but at home. I would make sure that key members of Congress were called in to discuss the gravity of the situation. And I would come up with a game plan to deal with it. That's what governors end up doing. We end up being problem solvers. We come up with practical, common sense solutions for problems that we're confronted with. In this case, in the case of a financial crisis, I would gather all the facts before I made the decision as to what the government ought or ought not to do. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore? GORE: First I want to compliment the governor on his response to those fires and floods in Texas. I accompanied James Lee Witt down to Texas when those fires broke out. And FEMA has been a major flagship project of our reinventing government efforts. And I agree, it works extremely well now. On the international financial crises that come up, my friend, Bob Rubin, the former Secretary of Treasury is here, he's a close advisor to me and great friend in all respects. I have had a chance to work with him and Allen Greenspan and others on the crisis following the collapse of the Mexican peso. When the Asian financial crisis raised the risk of world-wide recession that could affect our economy, And now, of course, the euro's value has been dropping, but seems to be under control. But it started for me in the last eight years when I had the honor of casting the tie-breaking vote to end the old economic plan here at home and put into place a new economic plan that has helped us to make some progress, 22 million new jobs, the greatest prosperity ever. But it's not good enough. My attitude is you ain't seen nothing yet. We need to do more and better. MODERATOR: So, Governor, would you agree there is no basic difference here on intervening -- on federal government intervening in what might be seen by others to be a private financial crisis? BUSH: No, there's no difference on that. There is a difference, though, as to what the economy has meant. I think the economy has meant more for the Gore and Clinton folks than the Gore and Clinton folks have meant for the economy. I think most of the economic growth that has taken place is a result of ingenuity and hard work and entrepreneurship and that's the role of goverment to encourage that. In terms of in response to the question, no. GORE: Can I comment on that? MODERATOR: You may. GORE: You know, I think the American people deserve credit for the great economy that we have. It's their ingenuity, I agree with that. But you know, they were working pretty hard eight years ago. And now they had ingenuity eight years ago. The difference is we've got a new policy. And instead of concentrating on tax cuts mostly for the wealthy, we want -- I want tax cuts for the middle-class families and I want to continue the prosperity and make sure that it enriches not just a few but all of our families. We have gone from the biggest deficits to the biggest surpluses. We have gone from a triple debt recession during the previous 12 years to a tripling in the stock market. Instead of a high unemployment, we have the lowest African-American and Latin American unemployment rates in history and 22 million new jobs. It's not good enough. Too many people have been left behind. We have got to do much more. The key is job training, education, investments in health care and education, environment, retirement security. And incidentally, we have got to preserve Social Security. I'm opposed to diverting one out of every six dollars out of the Social Security trust fund, as the Governor has proposed, into the stock market. I want new incentives for savings and investment for the young couples who are working hard so they can save and invest on their own on top of Social Security, not at the expense of Social Security, as the governor proposes. BUSH: Two points. One, a lot of folks are still waiting for that 1992 middle-class tax cut. I remember the vice president saying, "Just give us a chance to get up there, we're going to make sure you get tax cuts." It didn't happen. Now he's having to say that again. They've had their chance to deliver a tax cut to you. Secondly, the surest way to bust this economy is to increase the role and size of the federal budget. The Senate Budget Committee did a study of the vice president's expenditures. It's been projected that they could conceivably bust the budget by $900 billion. That means he'll either have to raise your taxes by $900 billion or go into the Social Security surplus for $900 billion. This is a plan that is going to increase the bureaucracy by 20,000 people. His targeted tax cut is so detailed, so much fine print that it is going to require numerous IRS agents. We need somebody to simplify the code, to be fair, to continue prosperity by sharing some of the surplus with the people who pay the bills, particularly those at the bottom end of the economic ladder. GORE: If I could respond, Jim. What he's quoting is not the Senate Budget Commiitte, it is a partisan press release by the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee that's not worth the government -- the taxpayer-paid paper that it's printed on. Now, as for 20,000 new bureaucrats, as you call them, you know, the size of the federal government will go down in a Gore administration. In the reinventing government program you just look at the numbers. It is 300,000 people smaller today than it was eight years ago. Now, the fact is you're going to have a hard time convincing folks that we were a whole lot better off eight years ago than we are today. But that's not the question. The question is, will we be better off four years from now than we are today? And as for the surest way to threaten our prosperity, having a $1.9 trillion tax cut, almost half of which goes to the wealthy, and a $1 trillion Social Security privatization proposal is the surest way to put our budget into deficit -- BUSH: I can't let the man continue with fuzzy math. It is 1.3 trillion. It will go to everybody who pays taxes. I'm not going to be the kind of president that says you get tax relief and you don't. I'm not going to be a picker and chooser. What is fair is everybody who pays taxes ought to get relief. MODERATOR: I thought we cleared this up a while ago. New question on Social Security. Both of you have Social Security reform plans, so we could spend the rest of the evening and two or three other evenings talking about them in detail. We won't do that. But -- GORE: Suits me. MODERATOR: Many experts, including Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, Vice President Gore, say that it will be impossible for either of you, essentially, to keep the system viable on its own during the coming baby boomer retirement onslaught without either reducing benefits or increasing taxes. You disagree? GORE: I do disagree. Because if we can keep our prosperity going, if we can continue balancing the budget and paying down the debt, then the strong economy keeps generating surpluses. Here is my plan. I will keep Social Security in a lockbox and that pays down the national debt. And the interest savings I would put right back into Social Security. That extends the life of Social Security for 55 years. Now, I think that it's very important to understand that cutting benefits under Social Security means that people like Winifred Skinner from Des Moines, Iowa, who is here, would really have a much harder time. Because there are millions of seniors who are living almost hand to mouth. And you talk about cutting benefits. I don't go along with it. I am opposed to it. I'm also opposed to a plan that diverts 1 out of every $6 away from the Social Security Trust Fund. Social Security is a trust fund that pays the checks this year with the money that is paid into Social Security this year. The governor wants to divert 1 out of every $6 off into the stock market, which means that he would drain a trillion dollars out of the Social Security Trust Fund in this generation over the next ten years, and Social Security under that approach would go bankrupt within this generation. His leading advisor on this plan actually said that would be okay, because then the Social Security Trust Fund could start borrowing. It would borrow up to $3 trillion. Now, Social Security has never done that. And I don't think it should do that. I think it should stay in a lockbox, and I'll tell you this. I will veto anything that takes money out of Social Security for privatization or anything else other than Social Security. BUSH: I thought it was interesting that on the two minutes he spent about a million-and-a-half on my plan, which means he doesn't want you to know what he's doing is loading up IOUs for future generations. He puts no real assets into the Social Security system. The revenues exceed the expenses in Social Security until the year 2015 which means all retirees are going to get the promises made. For those of you who he wants to scare into the voting booth to vote for him, hear me loud and clear. A promise made will be a promise kept. You bet we want to allow younger workers to take some of their own money. That's the difference of opinion. The vice president thinks it's the government's money. The payroll taxes are your money. You ought to put it in prudent, safe investments so that $1 trillion over the next ten years grows to be $3 trillion. The money stays within the Social Security system. It's a part of the Social Security system. He claims it will be out of Social Security. It's your money, it's a part of your retirement benefit. It's a fundamental difference between what we believe. I want you to have your own asset that you can call your own. That you can pass on from one generation to the next. I want to get a better rate of return for your own money than the paltry 2% that the current Social Security Trust gets today. Mr. Greenspan I thought missed an opportunity to say there's a third way, and that is to get a better rate of return on the Social Security monies coming into the trust. There is $2.3 trillion of surplus that we can use to make sure that younger workers have a Social Security plan in the future. If we're smart and if we trust workers and if we understand the power of the compounding rate of interest. GORE: Here is the difference. I give a new incentive for younger workers to save their own money and invest their own money, but not at the expense of Social Security, on top of Social Security. My plan is Social Security plus. The governor's plan is Social Security minus. Your future benefits would be cut by the amount that's diverted into the stock market. If you make bad investments, that's too bad. But even before then the problem hits because the money contributed to Social Security this year is an entitlement. That's how it works. And the money is used to pay the benefits for seniors this year. If you cut the amount going in 1 out of every $6, then you have to cut the value of each check by 1 out of every $6 unless you come up with the money from somewhere else. I would like to know from the governor -- I know we're not supposed to ask each other questions -- but I'd be interested in knowing, does that trillion dollars come from the trust fund, or does it come from the rest of the budget? BUSH: No. There's enough money to pay seniors today in the current affairs of Social Security. The trillion comes from the surplus. Surplus is money -- more money than needed. Let me tell you what your plan is. It's not Social Security plus, it's Social Security plus huge debt. That is what it is. You leave future generations with tremendous IOUs. It's time to have a leader that doesn't put off tomorrow what we should do today. It's time to have somebody to step up and say look, let's let younger workers take some of their own money and under certain guidelines invest it in the private markets. The safest of federal investments yields 4%. That's twice the amount of rate of return than the current Social Security Trust. It's a fundamental difference of opinion here, folks. Younger worker after younger worker hears my call that says I trust you. And you know what, the issue is changeing. Seniors now understand that the promise made will be a promise kept, but younger workers now understand we better have a government that trusts them and that's exactly what I'm going to do. GORE: Could I respond to that, Jim? This is a big issue. Could we do another round on it? MODERATOR: We're almost out of time. GORE: Just briefly. When FDR established Social Security, they didn't call them IOUs, they called it the full faith and credit of the United States. If you don't have trust in that, I do. If you take it out of the surplus in the trust fund, that means the trust fund goes bankrupt in this generation within 20 years. BUSH: This is a government that thinks a 2% rate of return on your money is satisfactory. It's not. This is a government that says younger workers can't possibly have their own assets. We need to think differently about the issue. We need to make sure our seniors get the promise made. If we don't trust younger workers to manage some of their own money with the Social Security surplus, to grow from $1 trillion to $3 trillion, it will be impossible to bridge the gap without it. What Mr. Gore's plan will do causing huge payroll taxes or major benefit reductions. MODERATOR: New question. Are there issues of character that distinguish you from Vice President Gore? BUSH: The man loves his wife and I appreciate that a lot. And I love mine. The man loves his family a lot, and I appreciate that, because I love my family. I think the thing that discouraged me about the vice president was uttering those famous words, "No controlling legal authority." I felt like there needed to be a better sense of responsibility of what was going on in the White House. I believe that -- I believe they've moved that sign, "The buck stops here" from the Oval Office desk to "The buck stops here" on the Lincoln bedroom. It's not good for the country and it's not right. We need to have a new look about how we conduct ourselves in office. There's a huge trust. I see it all the time when people come up to me and say, I don't want you to let me down again. And we can do better than the past administration has done. It's time for a fresh start. It's time for a new look. It's time for a fresh start after a season of cynicism. And so I don't know the man well, but I've been disappointed about how he and his administration have conducted the fundraising affairs. You know, going to a Buddhist temple and then claiming it wasn't a fundraiser isn't my view of responsibility. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore? GORE: I think we ought to attack our country's problems, not attack each other. I want to spend my time making this country even better than it is, not trying to make you out to be a bad person. You may want to focus on scandal. I want to focus on results. As I said a couple of months ago, I stand here as my own man and I want you to see me for who I really am. Tipper and I have been married for 30 years. We became grandparents a year-and-a-half ago. We've got four children. I have devoted 24 years of my life to public service and I've said this before and I'll say it again, if you entrust me with the presidency, I may not be the most exciting politician, but I will work hard for you every day. I will fight for middle-class families and working men and women and I will never let you down. MODERATOR: So, Governor, what are you saying when you mention the fundraising scandals or the fundraising charges that involve Vice President Gore? What are you saying that the voters should take from that that's relevant to this election? BUSH: They ought to factor in it when they go to the voting booth. MODERATOR: In what way? BUSH: I think people need to be held responsible for the actions they take in life. I think that -- well, I think that's part of the need for a cultural change. We need to say we each need to be responsible for what we do. People in the highest office of the land must be responsible for decisions they make in life. And that's the way I've conducted myself as Governor of Texas and that's the way I'll conduct myself as President of the United States, should I be fortunate enough to earn your vote. MODERATOR: Are you saying all this is irrelevant, Vice President Gore? GORE: No. I think the American people should take into account who we are as individuals, what our experience is, what our positions are on the issues and proposals are. I'm asking you to see me for who I really am. I'm offering you my own vision, my own experience, my own proposals. And incidentally, one of them is this. This current campaign financing system has not reflected credit on anybody in either party. And that's one of the reasons I've said before, and I'll pledge here tonight, if I'm president, the very first bill that Joe Lieberman and I will send to the United States Congress is the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. And the reason it's that important is that all of the other issues, whether prescription drugs for all seniors that are opposed by the drug companies or the patient's bill of rights to take the decisions away from the HMOs and give them to the doctors and nurses, opposed by the HMOs and insurance companies, all these other proposals are going to be a lot easier to get passed for the American people if we limit the influence of special interest money and give democracy back to the American people. And I wish Governor Bush would join me this evening in endorsing the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill. BUSH: You know, this man has no credibility on the issue. As a matter of fact, I read in the "New York Times" where he said he co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold Campaign Fundraising Bill. But he wasn't in the Senate with Senator Feingold. And so, look, I'm going to -- what you need to know about me is I will uphold the law, I'm going to have an attorney general that enforces the law. The time for campaign funding reform is after the election. This man has outspent me and the special interests are outspending me. And I am not going to lay down my arms in the middle of the campaign for somebody who has got no credibility on the issue. MODERATOR: Senator McCain -- hold on one second. Senator McCain said in August, "It doesn't matter which one of you is President of the United States in January, there is going to be blood on the floor of the United States Senate," and he'll tie up the Senate until campaign finance reform is passed that includes a ban on soft money. First of all, would you support that effort by him, or would you sign a bill that is finally passed that included -- BUSH: I would support an effort to ban corporate soft money and labor union soft money so long as there was dues check-off. I've campaigned on this since the primaries. I believe there needs to be instant disclosure on the Internet as to who has given to who. I think we need to fully enforce the law. I think we need to have an attorney general that says if a law is broken, we'll enforce it. Be strict and firm about it. GORE: Look, Governor Bush, you have attacked my character and credibility and I am not going to respond in kind. I think we ought to focus on the problems and not attack each other. One of the serious problems, hear me well, is that our system of government is being undermined by too much influence coming from special interest money. We have to get a handle on it. And like John McCain, I have learned from experience, and it's not a new position for me. 24 years ago I supported full public financing of all federal elections. And anybody who thinks I'm just saying it, it will be the first bill I send to the Congress. I want you to know I care passionately about this and I will fight until it becomes law. BUSH: I want people to hear what he just said. He is for full public financing of Congressional elections. I'm absolutely, adamently opposed to that. I don't want the government financing congressional elections. MODERATOR: On that wonderful note of disagreement, we have to stop here and we want to go now to your closing statements. Governor Bush is first. You have two minutes. BUSH: Thank you, Jim. Thank the University of Massachusetts and Mr. Vice President, thank you. It has been a good, lively exchange. There is a huge difference of opinion. Mine is I want to empower people in their own lives. I also want to go to Washington to get some positive things done. It is going to require a new spirit. A spirit of cooperation. It will require the ability of a Republican president to reach out across the partisan divide and to say to Democrats, let's come together to do what is right for America. It's been my record as Governor of Texas, it will be how I conduct myself if I'm fortunate enough to earn your vote as President of the United States. I want to finally get something done on Medicare. I want to make sure prescription drugs are available for all seniors. And I want seniors to have additional choices when it comes to choosing their health care plans. I want to finally get something done on Social Security. I want to make sure the seniors have the promise made will be a promise kept, but I want younger workers to be able to manage some of their own money, some of their own payroll taxes in the private sector under certain guidelines to get a better rate of return on your own money. I want to rebuild our military to keep the peace. I want to have a strong hand when it comes to the United States in world affairs. I don't want to try to put our troops in all places at all times. I don't want to be the world's policeman, I want to be the world's peacemaker by having a military of high morale and a military that is well-equipped. I want anti-ballistic missile systems to protect ourselves and our allies from a rogue nation that may try to hold us hostage or blackmail our allies and friends. I want to make sure the education system fulfills its hope and promise. I've had a strong record of working with Democrats and Republicans in Texas to make sure no child is left behind. I understand the limited role of the federal government, but it could be a constructive role when it comes to reform, by insisting that there be a strong accountability systems. My intentions are to earn your vote and earn your confidence. I'm asking for your vote. I want you to be on my team. And for those of you working, thanks from the bottom of my heart. For those of you making up your mind, I would be honored to have your support. MODERATOR: Vice President Gore, two minutes. GORE: I want to thank everybody who watched and listened tonight because this is indeed a crucial time in American history. We're at a fork in the road. We have this incredible prosperity, but a lot of people have been left behind. And we have a very important decision to make. Will we use the prosperity to enrich all of our families and not just a few? One important way of looking at this is to ask who are you going to fight for? Throughout my career in public service, I have fought for the working men and women of this country, middle-class families. Why? Because you are the ones who have the hardest time paying taxes, the hardest time making ends meet. You are the ones who are making car payments and mortgage payments and doing right by your kids. And a lot of times there are powerful forces that are against you. Make no mistake about it, they do have undue influence in Washington, D.C. and it makes a difference if you have a president who will fight for you. I know one thing about the position of president, it's the only position in our Constitution that is filled by an individual who is given the responsibility to fight not just for one state or one district or the well-connected or wealthy, but to fight for all of the people, including especially those who most need somebody who will stand up and take on whatever powerful forces might stand in the way. There is a woman named Winifred Skinner here tonight from Iowa. I mentioned her earlier. She's 79 years old. She has Social Security. I'm not going to cut her benefits or support any proposal that would. She gets a small pension, but in order to pay for her prescription drug benefits, she has to go out seven days a week several hours a day picking up cans. She came all the way from Iowa in a Winnebago with her poodle in order attend here tonight. I want to tell her, I'll fight for a prescription drug benefit for all seniors and fight for the people of this country for a prosperity that benefits all. MODERATOR: We will continue this dialogue next week on October 11th at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The format then will be more informal, more conversational with the two candidates seated at a table with me. The third will be October 17th at Washington University in St. Louis, and that will follow a town-hall type format. October 5 there is a 90-minute debate between Senator Joe Lieberman and Secretary Dick Cheney. It will be held at Center College in Danville, Kentucky. The moderator will be Bernard Shaw of CNN. Thank you, Governor Bush, Vice President Gore. See you next week. For now from Boston, I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night. Source: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/presidential-debate-boston

Senator Hatfield, Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. President, Vice President Bush, Vice President Mondale, Senator Baker, Speaker O'Neill, Reverend Moomaw, and my fellow citizens: To a few of us here today this is a solemn and most momentous occasion, and yet in the history of our nation it is a commonplace occurrence. The orderly transfer of authority as called for in the Constitution routinely takes place, as it has for almost two centuries, and few of us stop to think how unique we really are. In the eyes of many in the world, this every-4-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle. Mr. President, I want our fellow citizens to know how much you did to carry on this tradition. By your gracious cooperation in the transition process, you have shown a watching world that we are a united people pledged to maintaining a political system which guarantees individual liberty to a greater degree than any other, and I thank you and your people for all your help in maintaining the continuity which is the bulwark of our Republic. The business of our nation goes forward. These United States are confronted with an economic affliction of great proportions. We suffer from the longest and one of the worst sustained inflations in our national history. It distorts our economic decisions, penalizes thrift, and crushes the struggling young and the fixed-income elderly alike. It threatens to shatter the lives of millions of our people. Idle industries have cast workers into unemployment, human misery, and personal indignity. Those who do work are denied a fair return for their labor by a tax system which penalizes successful achievement and keeps us from maintaining full productivity. But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children's future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals. You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we're not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding: We are going to begin to act, beginning today. The economic 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. They will go away because we as Americans have the capacity now, as we've had in the past, to do whatever needs to be done to preserve this last and greatest bastion of freedom. In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price. We hear much of special interest groups. Well, our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we're sick -- professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truckdrivers. They are, in short, ''We the people,'' this breed called Americans. Well, this administration's objective will be a healthy, vigorous, growing economy that provides equal opportunities for all Americans with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination. Putting America back to work means putting all Americans back to work. Ending inflation means freeing all Americans from the terror of runaway living costs. All must share in the productive work of this ''new beginning,'' and all must share in the bounty of a revived economy. With the idealism and fair play which are the core of our system and our strength, we can have a strong and prosperous America, at peace with itself and the world. So, as we begin, let us take inventory. We are a nation that has a government -- not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed. It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government. Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work -- work with us, not over us; to stand by our side, not ride on our back. Government can and must provide opportunity, not smother it; foster productivity, not stifle it. If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on Earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on Earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay that price. It is no coincidence that our present troubles parallel and are proportionate to the intervention and intrusion in our lives that result from unnecessary and excessive growth of government. It is time for us to realize that we're too great a nation to limit ourselves to small dreams. We're not, as some would have us believe, doomed to an inevitable decline. I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing. So, with all the creative energy at our command, let us begin an era of national renewal. Let us renew our determination, our courage, and our strength. And let us renew our faith and our hope. We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are not heroes, they just don't know where to look. You can see heroes every day going in and out of factory gates. Others, a handful in number, produce enough food to feed all of us and then the world beyond. You meet heroes across a counter, and they're on both sides of that counter. There are entrepreneurs with faith in themselves and faith in an idea who create new jobs, new wealth and opportunity. They're individuals and families whose taxes support the government and whose voluntary gifts support church, charity, culture, art, and education. Their patriotism is quiet, but deep. Their values sustain our national life. Now, I have used the words ''they'' and ''their'' in speaking of these heroes. I could say ''you'' and ''your,'' because I'm addressing the heroes of whom I speak -- you, the citizens of this blessed land. Your dreams, your hopes, your goals are going to be the dreams, the hopes, and the goals of this administration, so help me God. We shall reflect the compassion that is so much a part of your makeup. How can we love our country and not love our countrymen; and loving them, reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they're sick, and provide opportunity to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory? Can we solve the problems confronting us? Well, the answer is an unequivocal and emphatic ''yes.'' To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I did not take the oath I've just taken with the intention of presiding over the dissolution of the world's strongest economy. In the days ahead I will propose removing the roadblocks that have slowed our economy and reduced productivity. Steps will be taken aimed at restoring the balance between the various levels of government. Progress may be slow, measured in inches and feet, not miles, but we will progress. It is time to reawaken this industrial giant, to get government back within its means, and to lighten our punitive tax burden. And these will be our first priorities, and on these principles there will be no compromise. On the eve of our struggle for independence a man who might have been one of the greatest among the Founding Fathers, Dr. Joseph Warren, president of the Massachusetts Congress, said to his fellow Americans, "Our country is in danger, but not to be despaired of . . . . On you depend the fortunes of America. You are to decide the important questions upon which rests the happiness and the liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves." Well, I believe we, the Americans of today, are ready to act worthy of ourselves, ready to do what must be done to ensure happiness and liberty for ourselves, our children, and our children's children. And as we renew ourselves here in our own land, we will be seen as having greater strength throughout the world. We will again be the exemplar of freedom and a beacon of hope for those who do not now have freedom. To those neighbors and allies who share our freedom, we will strengthen our historic ties and assure them of our support and firm commitment. We will match loyalty with loyalty. We will strive for mutually beneficial relations. We will not use our friendship to impose on their sovereignty, for our own sovereignty is not for sale. As for the enemies of freedom, those who are potential adversaries, they will be reminded that peace is the highest aspiration of the American people. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it; we will not surrender for it, now or ever. Our forbearance should never be misunderstood. Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will. When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act. We will maintain sufficient strength to prevail if need be, knowing that if we do so we have the best chance of never having to use that strength. Above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have. It is a weapon that we as Americans do have. Let that be understood by those who practice terrorism and prey upon their neighbors. I'm told that tens of thousands of prayer meetings are being held on this day, and for that I'm deeply grateful. We are a nation under God, and I believe God intended for us to be free. It would be fitting and good, I think, if on each Inaugural Day in future years it should be declared a day of prayer. This is the first time in our history that this ceremony has been held, as you've been told, on this West Front of the Capitol. Standing here, one faces a magnificent vista, opening up on this city's special beauty and history. At the end of this open mall are those shrines to the giants on whose shoulders we stand. Directly in front of me, the monument to a monumental man, George Washington, father of our country. A man of humility who came to greatness reluctantly. He led America out of revolutionary victory into infant nationhood. Off to one side, the stately memorial to Thomas Jefferson. The Declaration of Independence flames with his eloquence. And then, beyond the Reflecting Pool, the dignified columns of the Lincoln Memorial. Whoever would understand in his heart the meaning of America will find it in the life of Abraham Lincoln. Beyond those monuments to heroism is the Potomac River, and on the far shore the sloping hills of Arlington National Cemetery, with its row upon row of simple white markers bearing crosses or Stars of David. They add up to only a tiny fraction of the price that has been paid for our freedom. Each one of those markers is a monument to the kind of hero I spoke of earlier. Their lives ended in places called Belleau Wood, The Argonne, Omaha Beach, Salerno, and halfway around the world on Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Pork Chop Hill, the Chosin Reservoir, and in a hundred rice paddies and jungles of a place called Vietnam. Under one such marker lies a young man, Martin Treptow, who left his job in a small town barbershop in 1917 to go to France with the famed Rainbow Division. There, on the western front, he was killed trying to carry a message between battalions under heavy artillery fire. We're told that on his body was found a diary. On the flyleaf under the heading, ''My Pledge,'' he had written these words: ''America must win this war. Therefore I will work, I will save, I will sacrifice, I will endure, I will fight cheerfully and do my utmost, as if the issue of the whole struggle depended on me alone.'' The crisis we are facing today does not require of us the kind of sacrifice that Martin Treptow and so many thousands of others were called upon to make. It does require, however, our best effort and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds, to believe that together with God's help we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us. And after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans. God bless you, and thank you. Source: https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/inaugural-address-1981

July 18, 2024   Thank you very much. Thank you very, very much. And thank you, Dana. Thank you, Kid Rock, sometimes referred to as "Bob." And thank you, Lee, right from the beginning, thank you very much. What a talent. What a beautiful, beautiful song. Thank you. Friends, delegates and fellow citizens. I stand before you this evening with a message of confidence, strength and hope. Four months from now, we will have an incredible victory, and we will begin the four greatest years in the history of our country. Together, we will launch a new era of safety, prosperity and freedom for citizens of every race, religion, color and creed. The discord and division in our society must be healed. We must heal it quickly. As Americans, we are bound together by a single fate and a shared destiny. We rise together. Or we fall apart. I am running to be president for all of America, not half of America, because there is no victory in winning for half of America. So tonight, with faith and devotion, I proudly accept your nomination for president of the United States. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And we will do it right. We're going to do it right. Let me begin this evening by expressing my gratitude to the American people for your outpouring of love and support following the assassination attempt at my rally on Saturday. As you already know, the assassin's bullet came within a quarter of an inch of taking my life. So many people have asked me what happened. "Tell us what happened, please." And therefore, I will tell you exactly what happened, and you'll never hear it from me a second time, because it's actually too painful to tell. It was a warm, beautiful day in the early evening in Butler Township in the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Music was loudly playing, and the campaign was doing really well. I went to the stage and the crowd was cheering wildly. Everybody was happy. I began speaking very strongly, powerfully and happily. Because I was discussing the great job my administration did on immigration at the southern border. We were very proud of it. Behind me, and to the right, was a large screen that was displaying a chart of border crossings under my leadership. The numbers were absolutely amazing. In order to see the chart, I started to, like this, turn to my right, and was ready to begin a little bit further turn, which I'm very lucky I didn't do, when I heard a loud whizzing sound and felt something hit me really, really hard. On my right ear. I said to myself, "Wow, what was that? It can only be a bullet." And moved my right hand to my ear, brought it down. My hand was covered with blood. Just absolutely blood all over the place. I immediately knew it was very serious. That we were under attack. And in one movement proceeded to drop to the ground. Bullets were continuing to fly as very brave Secret Service agents rushed to the stage. And they really did. They rushed to the stage. These are great people at great risk, I will tell you, and pounced on top of me so that I would be protected. There was blood pouring everywhere, and yet in a certain way I felt very safe because I had God on my side. I felt that. The amazing thing is that prior to the shot, if I had not moved my head at that very last instant, the assassin's bullet would have perfectly hit its mark and I would not be here tonight. We would not be together. The most incredible aspect of what took place on that terrible evening, in the fading sun, was actually seen later. In almost all cases, as you probably know. And when even a single bullet is fired, just a single bullet, and we had many bullets that were being fired, crowds run for the exits or stampede. But not in this case. It was very unusual. This massive crowd of tens of thousands of people stood by and didn't move an inch. In fact, many of them bravely but automatically stood up, looking for where the sniper would be. They knew immediately that it was a sniper. And then began pointing at him. You can see that if you look at the group behind me. That was just a small group compared to what was in front. Nobody ran and, by not stampeding, many lives were saved. But that isn't the reason that they didn't move. The reason is that they knew I was in very serious trouble. They saw it. They saw me go down. They saw the blood, and thought, actually most did, that I was dead. They knew it was a shot to the head. They saw the blood. And there's an interesting statistic. The ears are the bloodiest part. If something happens with the ears they bleed more than any other part of the body. For whatever reason the doctors told me that. And I said, "Why is there so much blood?" He said, "It's the ears, they bleed more." So we learned something. But they just — They just, this beautiful crowd, they didn't want to leave me. They knew I was in trouble. They didn't want to leave me. And you can see that love written all over their faces. True. Incredible people. They're incredible people. Bullets were flying over us, yet I felt serene. But now the Secret Service agents were putting themselves in peril. They were in very dangerous territory. Bullets were flying right over them, missing them by a very small amount of inches. And then it all stopped. Our Secret Service sniper, from a much greater distance and with only one bullet used, took the assassin's life. Took him out. I'm not supposed to be here tonight. Not supposed to be here. [ Crowd chants "Yes, you are." ] Thank you. But I'm not. And I'll tell you. I stand before you in this arena only by the grace of almighty God. And watching the reports over the last few days, many people say it was a providential moment. Probably was. When I rose, surrounded by Secret Service, the crowd was confused because they thought I was dead. And there was great, great sorrow. I could see that on their faces as I looked out. They didn't know I was looking out; they thought it was over. But I could see it and I wanted to do something to let them know I was OK. I raised my right arm, looked at the thousands and thousands of people that were breathlessly waiting and started shouting, "Fight, fight, fight." Thank you. Once my clenched fist went up, and it was high into the air, you've all seen that, the crowd realized I was OK and roared with pride for our country like no crowd I have ever heard before. Never heard anything like it. For the rest of my life, I will be grateful for the love shown by that giant audience of patriots that stood bravely on that fateful evening in Pennsylvania. Tragically, the shooter claimed the life of one of our fellow Americans: Corey Comperatore. Unbelievable person, everybody tells me. Unbelievable. And seriously wounded two other great warriors. Spoke to them today: David Dutch and James Copenhaver. Two great people. I also spoke to all three families of these tremendous people. Our love and prayers are with them and always will be. We're never going to forget them. They came for a great rally. They were serious Trumpsters, I want to tell you. They were serious Trumpsters and still are. But Corey, unfortunately, we have to use the past tense. He was incredible. Yeah. He was a highly respected former fire chief. Respected by everybody. Was accompanied by his wife, Helen. Incredible woman. I spoke to her today. Devastated. And two precious daughters. He lost his life selflessly acting as a human shield to protect them from flying bullets. He went right over the top of them and was hit. What a fine man he was. I want to thank the fire department and the family for sending his helmet, his outfit and it was just something, and they're going to do something very special when they get it. But we did something which cannot match what happened. Not even close. But I am very proud to say that over the past few days we've raised $6.3 million. For the families of David, James and Corey. Including from a friend of mine just — called up, he sent me a check, right here, just got it. One million dollars. From Dan Newlin, thank you, Dan. And again, when speaking to the family, I told them, I said, "Well, I'm going to be sending a lot of money, but it can't compensate." They all said the same thing: "You're right, sir; we appreciate so much what you're doing, but nothing can take the place, in the case of Corey." And the other two. By the way, they were very, very seriously injured. But now they're doing very well. They're going to be OK. They're going to be doing very well. They're warriors. So now, I ask that we observe a moment of silence in honor of our friend Corey. There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for others. This is the spirit that forged America in her darkest hours. And this is the love that will lead America back to the summit of human achievement and greatness. This what we need. Despite such a heinous attack, we unite this evening, more determined than ever. I am more determined than ever and so are you. So is everybody in this room. [ Crowd chants, "We love Trump." ] Thank you. Thank you very much. Our resolve is unbroken and our purpose is unchanged, to deliver a government that serves the American people better than ever before. Nothing will stop me in this mission, because our vision is righteous and our cause is pure. No matter what obstacle comes our way, we will not break. We will not bend. We will not back down and I will never stop fighting for you, your family and our magnificent country. Never. And everything I have to give with all of the energy and fight in my heart and soul, I pledge to our nation tonight. Thank you very much. I pledge that to our nation. We're going to turn our nation around and we're going to do it very quickly. Thank you. This election should be about the issues facing our country and how to make America successful, safe, free and great again. In an age when our politics too often divide us, now is the time to remember that we are all fellow citizens — we are one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And we must not criminalize dissent or demonize political disagreement, which is what's been happening in our country lately, at a level that nobody has ever seen before. In that spirit, the Democrat party should immediately stop weaponizing the justice system and labeling their political opponent as an enemy of democracy. Especially since that is not true. In fact, I am the one saving democracy for the people of our country. And very big news, as you probably just read. On Monday, a major ruling was handed down from a highly respected federal judge in Florida, Aileen Cannon, finding that the prosecutor and the fake documents case against me were totally unconstitutional, and the entire case was thrown out of court. With all of that publicity — thrown out of court. If Democrats want to unify our country, they should drop these partisan witch hunts, which I've been going through for approximately eight years. And they should do that without delay and allow an election to proceed that is worthy of our people. We're going to win it anyway. But worthy of our people. On this journey, I am deeply honored to be joined by my amazing wife, Melania. And, Melania, thank you very much. You also did something really beautiful, a letter to America calling for national unity. And it really took the Republican Party by surprise, I will tell you; it was beautiful. In fact, some very serious people said that we should take that letter and put it as part of the Republican platform. That would be an honor, wouldn't it? Right? Mr. congressman? But it captivated so many, so … I also want to thank my entire family — Don and Kimberly, Ivanka and Jared, Eric and Lara, Tiffany and Michael, Barron, we love our Barron. And of course, my 10 wonderful grandchildren. You saw a few of them up there on my lap before. And how good was Dana? Was Dana good? I mean, wasn't he good? You know, he was on probably the only vacation he's had in about — maybe ever. Because he works. But about 10 years, with his wife — very far away. I won't tell you where, but very, very far away, beautiful place. And my people called and he said, "Yeah, I won't be able to do it. This is many, many years. I promised my wife. I can't do it." And they came and they said, "Dana won't be able to do it." Because he was my first, second and third choice. I said, "Well, you know, that's too bad." But I understand, he's away and it's good. It's good for him. And that was it. About 30 minutes later, she came back in: "Sir, Dana just called; he's going to do it." And his wife, she said, "You can't turn him down. You just can't do it. You have to go." That's a good wife. So he got in a plane, he got here a little while ago. Now he's going to get on the plane in a little while and he's going to go back home to his wife. But they're great. And I just want to thank her and him and their whole family because that's not easy. And Kid Rock, same thing. Called, he said, "I want to be a part of it." I want to be a part, because, you know, Kid does this great song. Big, big monster song. I had no idea. You know, he became a friend of mine over the last 10 years. And, uh, he's amazing. Everyone loves him. I didn't even know how big he was. You know, he has rallies. Thirty-five, 40,000 people he gets, every time he goes out. I think he's making so much money he doesn't know what the hell to do with it, you want to know ... And then we have my other friend, and I've known him so long and we took that song and it was a big success. But we made that. I saw a chart of great songs to America. That was No. 1 on the chart recently. No. 1, so. That's Lee Greenwood, very special, beautiful person. He's a beautiful man. But they all wanted to be here. They called … And how about the Hulkster? How good was he? You see that? Where is he? Boy, oh boy. You know, they may call it, they may call that entertainment. I know about entertainment, but when he used to lift a 350-pound man over his shoulders and then bench press him two rows into the audience, I say maybe entertainment, but he is one strong son of a gun, I tell you. I watched it many times. There aren't a lot of entertainers that could do that, right? You were fantastic. Thank you very much. Followed by … Eric? What was that all about? Boy, that was good. I didn't want to really come up here. But he was so great. And he's such a good young man. He went through a lot of trouble, and Don, last night, was incredible. They went through so much trouble. They got subpoenaed more than any people probably in the history of the United States. Every week they get another subpoena from the Democrats. Crazy Nancy Pelosi, the whole thing. Just boom, boom, boom. They've got to stop that because they're destroying our country. We have to work on making America great again, not on beating people. And we won. We beat them in all. We beat them on the impeachments. We beat them on the indictments. We beat them. But the time that you have to spend, the time that you have to spend. If they would devote that genius to helping our country, we'd have a much stronger and better country. And Jason. The biggest star in country music. Jason, thank you for being here. Jason, thank you very much. Jason Aldean, he's good. I like his wife even better, by the way. She's here. Thank you, Jason. But I'm thrilled to have a new friend and partner fighting by my side: the next vice president of the United States, the current senator from Ohio, J.D. Vance, and his incredible wife, Usha. He's going to be a great vice president, he's going to be great. He'll be with this country and with this movement. Greatest movement in the history of our country. Make America Great Again. When they criticize it, they say, "We're going to try and stop MAGA." MAGA is "Make America Great Again." What are you going to stop? There's nothing to stop. Then they say, "Oh, that's right." It's very tough to fight it. And all of the people that did try and fight it have failed, but he's going to be with us for a long time, and it was an honor to select him. Great, great student at Yale. His wife was a student at Yale; they met at Yale. These are two smart people. So J.D., you're going to be doing this for a long time; enjoy the ride. And a very special thank you to the extraordinary people of Milwaukee and the great state of — oh, there they are. There they are, that's — You are so easy to spot. And Green Bay's going to have a good team this year, right? They're going to have a good team. They're going to have a good team. Most of the audience doesn't like it, but it's true. You're going to have a very good team this year. And by the way, Wisconsin, we are spending over $250 million here, creating jobs and other economic … development all over the place. So I hope you will remember this in November and give us your vote. I am trying to buy your vote. I'll be honest about that. And I promise we will make Wisconsin great again. We're going to make this ... Thank you. Mr. governor, thank you very much. Thank you. I am here tonight to lay out a vision for the whole nation. To every citizen, whether you're a young or old, man or woman, Democrat, Republican or Independent, Black or white, Asian or Hispanic, I extend to you a hand of loyalty and of friendship. Together, we will lead America to new heights of greatness like the world has never seen before. We were right there in the first term. We got hit with Covid. We did a great job. Nobody knew what it was. But nobody's ever seen an economy pre-Covid, and then we handed over a stock market that was substantially higher than just prior to Covid. Coming in, did a great job. Never got credit for that. We got credit for the war and defeating ISIS and so many things. The great economy. The biggest tax cuts ever. The biggest regulation cuts ever. The creation of Space Force, the rebuilding of our military. We did so much. We do so much. Right to Try, Right to Try is a big deal. We've got Right to Try. They were trying to get that for 52 years. Somebody's terminally ill. And hopefully there's nobody in this audience, but it does happen, a lot. They're terminally ill and they can't use our new space-age drugs and other things that we are way ahead with. We have the greatest doctors in the world. The greatest laboratories in the world, and you can't do it. They've been trying to get that approved for 52 years, wasn't that easy. The insurance companies didn't want to do it. They didn't want the risk. The labs didn't want to do it because if it didn't work, people are pretty far down the line toward death. They didn't want to do it. The doctors didn't want to have it on their record. So I got everybody into an office — 52 years, they tried. Sounds simple, but it's not. And I got them to agree that somebody that needs it will, instead of going to Asia or Europe or some place, or if you have no money, going home and dying — just die — we got them to sign an agreement. They agreed to it, where they're not going to sue anybody. They can get all of this stuff. They're going to get it really fast, and what's happened is we're saving thousands and thousands of lives. It's incredible. Right to Try. It's … great feeling. Under our leadership, the United States will be respected again. No nation will question our power. No enemy will doubt our might. Our borders will be totally secure. Our economy will soar. We will return law and order to our streets, patriotism to our schools, and importantly, we will restore peace, stability and harmony all throughout the world. But to achieve this future, we must first rescue our nation from failed and even incompetent leadership. We have totally incompetent leadership. This will be the most important election in the history of our country. Under the current administration, we are indeed a nation in decline. We have an inflation crisis that is making life unaffordable, ravaging the incomes of working and low-income families, and crushing, just simply crushing our people like never before. They've never seen anything like it. We also have an illegal immigration crisis, and it's taking place right now, as we sit here in this beautiful arena. It's a massive invasion at our southern border that has spread misery, crime, poverty, disease, and destruction to communities all across our land. Nobody's ever seen anything like it. Then there is an international crisis, the likes of which the world has seldom been part of. Nobody can believe what's happening. War is now raging in Europe and the Middle East, a growing specter of conflict hangs over Taiwan, Korea, the Philippines, and all of Asia, and our planet is teetering on the edge of World War III, and this will be a war like no other war because of weaponry. The weapons are no longer army tanks going back and forth, shooting at each other. These weapons are obliteration. It's time for a change. This administration can't come close to solving the problems. We're dealing with very tough, very fierce people. They're fierce people. And we don't have fierce people. We have people that are a lot less than fierce, except when it comes to cheating on elections and a couple of other things, then they're fierce. Then they're fierce. So tonight, I make this pledge to the great people of America. I will end the devastating inflation crisis immediately, bring down interest rates and lower the cost of energy . We will drill, baby, drill. Can you believe what they're doing? But by doing that, we will lead a large-scale decline in prices. Prices will start to come down. Energy… Raised it, they took our energy policies and destroyed them. Then they immediately went back to them, but by that time, so much was lost. But we will do it at levels that nobody's ever seen before, and we'll end lots of different things. We'll start paying off debt and start lowering taxes even further. We gave you the largest tax cut. We'll do it more. Now, people don't realize, I brought taxes way down, way, way down. And yet we took in more revenues the following year than we did when the tax rate was much higher. Most people said, how did you do that? Because it was incentive. Everybody was coming to the country, they were bringing back billions and billions of dollars into our country. The companies made it impossible to bring it back. The tax rate was too high and the legal complications were far too great. I changed both of them, and hundreds of billions of dollars by Apple and so many other companies would work back into our nation, and we had an economy the likes of which nobody, no nation had ever seen. China, we were beating them at levels that were incredible. And they know it. They know it. We'll do it again, but we'll do it even better. I will end the illegal immigration crisis by closing our border and finishing the wall, most of which I've already built. On the wall, we were dealing with a very difficult Congress and I said, "Oh, that's OK. We won't go to Congress." I call it an "invasion." We gave our military almost $800 billion. I said, "I'm going to take a little of that money, because this is an 'invasion.'" And we built — Most of the wall is already built, and we built it through using the funds, because what's more, what's better than that? We have to stop the invasion into our country that's killing hundreds of thousands of people a year. We're not going to let that happen. I will end every single international crisis that the current administration has created, including the horrible war with Russia and Ukraine, which would have never happened if I was president. And the war caused by the attack on Israel, which would never have happened if I was president. Iran was broke. Iran had no money. Now Iran has $250 billion. They made it all over the last two and a half years. They were broke. I watched the other day on a show called "Deface the Nation," has anyone seen it? And they had a congressman who was a Democrat say, Well, whether you like him or not, Iran was broke dealing with Trump. I told China and other countries, "If you buy from Iran, we will not let you do any business in this country, and we will put tariffs on every product you do send in of 100 percent or more." And they said to me, Well, I think that's about it. They weren't going to buy any oil. And they were ready to make a deal. Iran was going to make a deal with us. And then we had that horrible, horrible result that we'll never let happen again. The election result. We're never going to let that happen again. They used Covid to cheat. We're never going to let it happen again. And they took off all the sanctions, and they did everything possible for Iran and now Iran is very close to having a nuclear weapon, which would have never happened. This is a shame, what this administration, the damage that this administration has done. And I say it often. If you took the 10 worst presidents in the history of the United States. Think of it. The 10 worst. Added them up, they will not have done the damage that Biden has done. Only going to use the term once. Biden. I'm not going to use the name anymore. Just one time. The damage that he's done to this country is unthinkable. It's unthinkable. Together, we will restore vision, strength, competence and we're going to have a thing called common sense making most of our decisions actually. It's all common sense. Just a few short years ago under my presidency, we had the most secure border and the best economy in the history of our country, in the history of the world. We had the greatest economy in the history of the world. We had never done anything like it. We were beating every country, including China, by leaps and bounds. Nobody had seen anything like it. We had no inflation, soaring incomes, we're going — Nobody's — Nobody can believe it. You can't believe what happened four years ago is happening now in reverse. And the world was at peace. Inflation has been a killer for our country. No matter what you're making, it doesn't matter because inflation is eating you alive. People that were putting away money, they were making great wages. The highest they've ever made. But they were putting away a lot of money. Now they are just being destroyed. They're not putting away anything. They're barely living. They're going into saving accounts. They're taking out their money to live because of inflation. Inflation, remember, it's called a country buster. You can go back to Germany from 100 years ago. You can go back to any country that's suffered great inflation. We've suffered the worst inflation we've ever had. But go back and see what's happened to those countries. We've had the worst inflation we've ever had under this person. But in less than four years, our opponents have turned incredible success into unparalleled tragedy and failure. It's been a tremendous failure. Today, our cities are flooded with illegal aliens. Americans are being squeezed out of the labor force and their jobs are taken. By the way, you know who's taking the jobs, the jobs that are created? One hundred and seven percent of those jobs are taken by illegal aliens. And you know who's being hurt the most by millions of people pouring into our country? The Black population and the Hispanic population. Because they're taking the jobs from our Black population, our Hispanic population. And they're also taking them from unions. The unions are suffering because of it. Thank you. Thank you. I like you too. Thank you very much. Inflation has wiped out the life savings of our citizens, and forced the middle class into a state of depression and despair. That's what it is. It's despair and depression. We cannot, and will not, let this continue. Less than four years ago, we were a great nation, and we will soon be a great nation again. We're going to be a great nation again. Thank you. With proper leadership, every disaster we are now enduring will be fixed — and it will be fixed very, very quickly. So tonight, whether you've supported me in the past or not, I hope you will support me in the future, because I will bring back the American dream. That's what we're going to do. You don't even hear about the American dream anymore. With great humility, I am asking you to be excited about the future of our country. Be excited. Be excited. And by the way, the news reports. All, look at all of those big networks. Look at them. They're all here. But everyone one of them has said this could be the most organized, best run and most enthusiastic convention of either party that they've ever seen. Every single one. And it's true. It's true. And there's love in the room. There's great love in the room. So I'd better finish strong. Otherwise, we'll blow it, and we can't let that happen. No, this was great. All of the great people that spoke and everybody hit a home run. I mean, there's not one that I can think of where I said, "Oh, gee, that wasn't great." Every single person. I refuse to be the only one. Don't do that to me. They're already getting ready. See, I gave them an idea. No, we had a, this was a great convention. This was — I think we're actually going to go home and miss it. You know usually with a — First of all, look at these crowds. You'd never have this at a convention. Look at these crowds. Love, it's about love. This week, the entire Republican Party has formally adopted an agenda for America's renewal. And you saw that agenda, and it's very short compared to the long, boring, meaningless agendas of the past. Including the Democrats. They write these things that are hundreds of pages long and they never read them after they're done. In their case, fortunately they don't read them because they're pretty bad. It's a series of bold promises that we will swiftly implement when you give us a Republican House. And Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. We have our great speaker of the House with us tonight. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. Thank you. A Republican Senate. We have many senators here. And send me back to our beautiful White House just a few short months from now. We're talking about just months. It can't come fast enough. We have to get it done. First, we must get economic relief to our citizens. Starting on Day 1, we will drive down prices and make America affordable again. We have to make it affordable. It's not affordable. People can't live like this. Under this administration, our current administration, groceries are up 57 percent, gasoline is up 60 and 70 percent, mortgage rates have quadrupled, and the fact is it doesn't matter what they are because you can't get the money anyway. Can't buy houses. Young people can't get any financing to buy a house. The total household costs have increased an average of $28,000 per family under this administration. Republicans have a plan to bring down prices, and bring them down very, very rapidly. By slashing energy costs, we will in turn reduce the cost of transportation, manufacturing and all household goods. So much starts with energy. And remember, we have more liquid gold under our feet than any other country by far. We are a nation that has the opportunity to make an absolute fortune with its energy. We have it and China doesn't. Under the Trump administration just three and a half years ago, we were energy independent. But soon we will actually be better than that. We will be energy dominant and supply not only ourselves, but we will supply the rest of the world. With numbers that nobody has ever seen and we will reduce our debt, $36 trillion. We will start reducing that. And we will also reduce your taxes still further. Next, and by the way they want to raise your taxes four times. Think of it. And all my life I grew up watching politicians. I always loved politics, I guess. I was on the other side. I'd watch the — and they were always talking about we will give you a tax cut, we will give you a tax cut. My whole life I was watching I will give you a tax cut, right Mr. Congressman? That's all they talked about. This is the only administration that said we're going to raise your taxes by four times what you're paying now. And people are supposed to vote for them? I've never heard it. You're paying too much, we're going to reduce your taxes still further. We gave you the biggest one, as I said. We're going to give you more and it's going to lead to tremendous growth. We want growth in our country. That's what's going to pay off our debt. And next, we will end the ridiculous and actually incredible waste of taxpayer dollars that is fueling the inflation crisis. They've spent trillions of dollars of things having to do with the Green New Scam. It's a scam. And that has caused tremendous inflationary pressures in addition to the cost of energy. And all of the trillions of dollars that are sitting there not yet spent, we will redirect that money for important projects like roads, bridges, dams and we will not allow it to be spent on the meaningless Green New scam ideas. And I will end the electric vehicle mandate on day one. Thereby saving the U.S. auto industry from complete obliteration, which is happening right now and saving U.S. customers thousands and thousands of dollars per car. And right now as we speak, large factories, just started, are being built across the border in Mexico. So, with all the other things happening at our border, and they're being built by China to make cars and to sell them into our country, no tax, no anything. The United Autoworkers ought to be ashamed for allowing this to happen and the leader of the United Auto Workers should be fired immediately and every single autoworker, union and nonunion, should be voting for Donald Trump because we're going to bring back car manufacturing and we're going to bring it back fast. They are building some of the largest auto plants anywhere in the world. Think of it. In the world. And we are going to bring it back. We're going to make them. We don't mind the — We don't mind it happening but plants will be built in the United States and our people are going to man those plants. And if they don't agree with us, we'll put a tariff of approximately 100 to 200 percent on each car and they will be unsellable in the United States. We have long been taken advantage of by other countries. And think of it, oftentimes these other countries are considered so-called allies. They've taken advantage of us for years. We lose jobs. We lose revenue and they gain everything and wipe out our businesses, wipe out our people. I stopped it for four years, I stopped it. And we're really ready to make changes like nobody had seen before. And remember, U.S.M.C.A. I got rid of NAFTA the worst trade deal ever made and replaced it with U.S.M.C.A. which is, they say, the best trade deal ever made. Actually, probably the best trade deal was the deal I made with China where they buy $50 billion of our product. They were buying nothing. They buy $50 billion worth. They had to but I don't even talk about it because of Covid. I don't even mention it frankly because of what happened with the China virus. We will not let countries come in, take our jobs, and plunder our nation. They come and do that. They plunder our nation. The way they will sell their product in America is to build it in America, very simple. Build it in America and only in America. And this very simple formula, and congress has to go along with us and they will. This very simple formula will create massive numbers of jobs. We will take over the auto industry again and many many, hundreds of thousands of jobs, we lost so many jobs over the years. If you go back 20, 25 years they've stolen, going to China and Mexico, about 68 percent of our auto industry. Manufacturing jobs. We're going to get them all back. We're going to get them all back, every single one of them. At the center of our plan for economic relief are massive tax cuts for workers that include something else that stood out to be very popular actually. Here it's very popular. In this building and all those hotels that are so nice, I'm staying in a nice one. It's called no tax on tips. No tax on tips. No tax on tips. And I got that by having dinner recently in Nevada where we're leading by about 14 points. Hello. I'll see you there very soon, everybody. And we were having dinner at a beautiful restaurant in the Trump building on the Strip. And it's a great building and the waitress comes over. "How's everything going?" Really nice person. "How's everything going?" "Oh sir, it's so tough. The government is after me all the time on tips, tips, tips." I said, "Well, they give you cash, would they be able to find them?" And she said, "Actually," and I didn't know this, very little cash is given. It's all put right on the check. And they come in and they take so much of our money it's just ridiculous. And they don't believe anything we say. They've just hired, as you know, 88,000 agents to go after them even more. And I said, "This shows the level of—" You know, most people who go out they hire consultants. They pay them of dollars. But I said to her, "Let me just ask you a question. Would you be happy if you had no tax on tips?" She said, "What a great idea." I got my information from a very smart waitress. That's better than spending millions of dollars. And everybody, everybody loves it. Waitresses and caddies and drivers and everybody. It's a large, large group of people that are being hurt badly. They make money, let them keep their money. I am going to protect Social Security and Medicare. Democrats are going to destroy Social Security and Medicare because all of these people, by the millions, they're coming in. They're going to be on Social Security and Medicare and other things and you're not able to afford it. They are destroying your Social Security and your Medicare. Under my plan, incomes will skyrocket, inflation will vanish completely, jobs will come roaring back, and the middle class will prosper like never, ever before and we're going to do it very rapidly. But no hope or dream we have for America can succeed unless we stop the illegal immigrant invasion. The worst that's ever been seen anywhere in the world. There's never been an invasion anywhere. Third world countries would fight with sticks and stones not to let this happen. The invasion at our southern border, we will stop it and we will stop it quickly. You heard Tom Homan yesterday. Tom Homan, put him in charge and just sit back and watch. Brandon Judd, a border patrol, he's incredible. These guys they, you know, they, they really their job is a lot easier if they don't have to do anything but they want to. They're patriots. Brandon Judd. Border Patrol. ICE. ICE goes out. You have to see what ICE does with M.S. 13. You have, these, these are probably the worst gang and ICE goes in there. And I know a lot of people in these rows here. And they're very tough people. But they don't want to do this job. They'll go into a pack of M.S. 13 killers. They're the worst, probably the worst gangs in the world. We have thousands of them. I moved thousands and thousands out in my four years. We moved them out. And it was a pleasure, but ICE would go right into a pack of these killers. And you see fist flying, you see everything flying and they take them. They put them in a paddy wagon. They take them back and they get them out of our country. And the other countries weren't accepting them back. And I called up and I said tell them that we're not giving them economic aid any more. And the next day I got calls from all these countries that were terminated. Billions of dollars we spend on economic aid to countries that does us frankly no good. And the next day I was called by everybody, I couldn't take all the calls. "Sir, sir, what's the problem?" I said, "You won't take your killers back that you sent in caravans into America. You won't take them back." "Well sir, if you'd like us to, we would give very serious consideration to doing that." In 24 hours, they were being taken back. For years and years when I first came in, they said President Obama tried to get them to go back and they wouldn't accept them. They'd put planes on the runway so you couldn't land the plane. They'd close the roads so you couldn't take the buses; they'd all have to turn back. As soon as they said no more economic aid of any kind to any country that does that, they called back and they said, "Sir, it would be our great honor to take M.S. 13. We love them very much. We love them very much, sir. We'll take them back." At the heart of the Republican platform is our pledge to end this border nightmare, and fully restore the sacred and sovereign borders of the United States of America. And we're going to do that on Day 1. That means two things on Day 1, right? Drill, baby, drill and close our borders. And by the way, and I think everybody as a Republican, as a patriot in this. Less than four years ago, I handed this administration the strongest border in American history. But you can see on the chart that saved my life. That was the chart that saved my life. I said, "Look at, I'm so proud of it." I think it's one of the greatest — it was done by the Border Patrol — one of the greatest charts I've ever seen. It showed everything, just like that. You know the chart. Oh, there it is. That's pretty good. Wow. Last time I put up that chart I never really got to look at it. But without that chart, I would not be here today. Never got to look at it. I said, "You've got to see this chart." I was so proud of it. But by the time I got to there. I never got to see it that day. But I'm seeing it now and I was very proud. If you look at the arrow on the bottom, that's the lowest level, the one on the bottom, heavy red arrow, that's the lowest level of illegal immigrants ever to come into our country in recorded history. Right there. Right there. And that was my last week in office. And then you see what happened after I left. Look at the rest. And if you go out a little bit further, it's getting to be a little bit old, but I love it anyway right, but you can go much higher with those numbers. Look what happened right after that. The invasion began. We had the opposite. We stopped the invasion. But the invasion we stopped was peanuts by comparison to what happened after I left. Look at what happened after I left. They took over our country. We ended all catch-and-release. We shut down asylum fraud. We stopped human trafficking and forged historic agreements to keep illegal aliens on foreign soil. We want them to stay on their soil. Under the Trump administration, if you came in illegally, you were apprehended immediately and you were deported. You went right back. The current administration terminated every single one of those great Trump policies that I put in place to seal the border. I wanted a sealed border. Again, come in but come in legally. You know how unfair it is? So many people, hundreds of thousands of people have been working for years to come into our country. And now they see these people pour into our country at levels that are unprecedented. So unfair. And we're not going to do it. We're not going to stand for it. They suspended wall construction, ended "Remain in Mexico." We had a policy, "Remain in Mexico." You think that was easy to get from the Mexican government? But I said, "You must give it to us. If you don't give it to us, there will be repercussions." And they gave it to us, but not easy. Canceled our Safe Third agreements, demolished Title 42, implemented nationwide catch-and-release. That's catch-and-release where we catch them and release them into our country. I had we catch them and release them into Mexico. There's a slight difference. And took 93, this is the previous administration, 93 executive actions to throw open our border to the world. The entire world is pouring into our country because of this very foolish administration. The greatest invasion in history is taking place right here in our country. They are coming in from every corner of the earth, not just from South America, but from Africa, Asia, Middle East. They're coming from everywhere. They're coming at levels that we've never seen before. It is an invasion indeed, and this administration does absolutely nothing to stop them. They're coming from prisons. They're coming from jails. They're coming from mental institutions and insane asylums. I, you know the press is always on because I say this. Has anyone seen "The Silence of the Lambs"? The late, great Hannibal Lecter. He'd love to have you for dinner. That's insane asylums. They're emptying out their insane asylums. And terrorists at numbers that we've never seen before. Bad things are going to happen. Meanwhile, our crime rate is going up, while crime statistics all over the world are going down. Because they're taking their criminals and they're putting them into our country. A certain country, and I happen to like the president of that country very much, but he's been getting great publicity because he's a wonderful shepherd of the country. He says how well the country's doing because their crime rate is down. And he said he's training all of these rough people. They're rough, rough, rough. He's training them. And I've been reading about this for two years. I think, "Oh that's wonderful, let's take a look at it." But then I realize he's not training them; he's sending all of his criminals, his drug dealers, his people that are in jails, he's sending them all to the United States. And he's different in that he doesn't say that. He's trying to convince everybody what a wonderful job he does in running the country. Well, he doesn't do a wonderful job. And by the way, if I ran one of the countries, many countries, many, many countries from all over, I would be worse than any of them. I would have had the place totally emptied out already. But we have become a dumping ground for the world, which is laughing at us. They think we're stupid. And they can't believe that they're getting away with what they're getting away with, but they're not going to be getting away with it for long. That's what I can tell you. In Venezuela, Caracas, high crime, high crime. Caracas, Venezuela, really a dangerous place. But not anymore, because in Venezuela, crime is down 72 percent. In fact, if they would ever in this election, I hate to even say that, we will have our next Republican convention in Venezuela because it will be safe. Our cities, our cities will be so unsafe we won't be able, we will not be able to have it there. In El Salvador, murders are down 70 percent. Why are they down? Now, he would have you convinced that because he's trained murderers to be wonderful people, no. They're down because they're sending their murderers to the United States of America. This is going to be very bad. And bad things are going to happen. And you're seeing all the time. That's why, to keep our family safe, the Republican platform promises to launch the largest deportation operation in the history of our country. Even larger than that of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, from many years ago. You know, he was a moderate but he believed very strongly in borders. He had the largest deportation operation we've ever had. Just recently, I spoke to the grieving mother of Jocelyn Nungaray, a wonderful woman. A precious 12 year-old girl from Houston who last month was tied up, assaulted and strangled to death after walking to the convenience store just a block away from her house. Her body was dumped near the side of the road in a shallow creek, found by some onlookers who couldn't believe what they had witnessed. Charged with Jocelyn's heinous murder, two illegal aliens from Venezuela who came across our border, were in custody and were then released into the country by this horrible, horrible administration that we have right now. I also met recently with the heartbroken mother and sister of Rachel Morin. Rachel was a 37-year-old mom of five beautiful children who was brutally raped and murdered while out on a run. She wanted to keep herself in good shape. It was very important to her. She was murdered. The monster responsible first killed another woman in El Salvador before he was let into America by the White House. This White House let them in. He then attacked a 9-year-old girl and her mother in a home invasion in Los Angeles before murdering Rachel in Maryland. Traveled all throughout the country, doing tremendous damage. Rachel's mother will never be the same. I spent time with her. She will never be the same. I've also met with the wonderful family of Laken Riley, the brilliant 22-year-old nursing student. She was so proud of being first in her class, who was out for a run on the campus of the University of Georgia when she was assaulted, beaten and horrifically killed. Yet another American life was stolen by a criminal alien set free by this administration. These were incredible people we're talking about. These were incredible people who died. Tonight, America, this is my vow. I will not let these killers and criminals into our country. I will keep our sons and daughters safe. As we bring security to our streets, we will help bring stability to the world. I was the first president in modern times to start no new wars. You know, we were the toughest. We were the most respected. And you saw this. Hungary, strong country. Run by a very powerful, tough leader. He's a tough guy. The press doesn't like him because he's tough. And he came out recently. They were asking him at an interview: The whole world is exploding, what's happening, what's going on. Viktor Orban, prime minister of Hungary, very tough man. He said, "I don't want people coming into my country and blowing up our shopping centers and killing people." But they said to him, "Tell us, what's going wrong? What's happening? What is it?" He said, "There's only one way you're going to solve it. You got to bring President Trump back to the United States because he kept everybody at bay." True. He used a word I wouldn't use because I can't use that word. Because you'd say it was braggadocious. The press would say, "He was a braggart." I am not a braggart. But Viktor Orban said it. He said "Russia was afraid of him. China was afraid of him. Everybody was afraid of him. Nothing was going to happen." The whole world was at peace, and now the world is blowing up around us. All of these things you read about were not going to happen. Under President Bush, Russia invaded Georgia. Under President Obama, Russia took Crimea. Under the current administration, Russia is after all of Ukraine. Under President Trump, Russia took nothing. We defeated 100 percent of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, something that was said to take "five years, sir, it'll take five years, sir." We did it in a matter of a couple months. We have a great military. Our military is not woke. It's just some of the fools on top that are woke. I got along very well, North Korea, Kim Jung Un. I got along very well with him. The press hated when I said that. "How could you get along with him?" Well, you know, it's nice to get along with someone who has a lot of nuclear weapons or otherwise. See, in the old days, you'd say that's a wonderful thing. Now they say, "How can you possibly do that?" But no, I got along with him and we stopped the missile launches from North Korea. Now, North Korea is acting up again. But when we get back, I get along with him. He'd like to see me back too. I think he misses me, if you want to know the truth. Our opponents inherited a world at peace and turned it into a planet of war. We're in a planet of war. Look at that attack on Israel. Look at what's happening with Ukraine. The cities are just bombed out. How can people live like that, where buildings, massive buildings are falling to the ground. It began to unravel with the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, the worst humiliation in the history of our country. We have never had a humiliation like that. Thirteen heroic U.S. service members were tragically and needlessly killed. Forty-five others were horrifically wounded. Nobody ever talks about that. No arms, no legs, face explosions. Horrifically, horrifically wounded. And by the way, we have a man in this room who is running for the U.S. Senate from a great state, Nevada, named Sam Brown, who paid the ultimate price. Thank you, Sam. Thank you, Sam. Thank you. He paid the biggest price probably ever paid by anybody that is running for office, and I think he is going to do great. He's running against a person that is not good, not respected. A total lightweight. But Sam, I think, paid really — We were talking about it with some of the senators that are working so hard for Sam. But he paid the biggest price of any senator ever to run for the Senate. I don't think anybody has ever, what he did. He's a real hero, a really great person. And he's running and I hope that everybody gets out and votes for Sam Brown. And we also left behind $85 billion dollars' worth of military equipment, along with many American citizens were left behind. Many, many American citizens. Emboldened by that disaster, Russia invaded Ukraine. They saw this group of people that were incompetent. We took the soldiers out first, no, no. We're going to take the soldiers out second. If they would have followed my plan; we had a great plan. But the plan only kicked in if they did everything perfectly, and they weren't doing things perfectly. So we said it doesn't kick in. You know, 18 months in Afghanistan, we didn't have one — they were killing them left and right, snipers. And I spoke to the head of the Taliban. You've heard this story. Abdul, still there. Still the head of the Taliban. The press got on me, "Why would you speak to him?" I said, "Because that's where the killing is." I don't have to speak to somebody that has nothing to do with it. And I told him: "Don't ever do that. Don't ever do that again. Don't ever, ever do that again, you're going to stop." Because during the Obama administration, many great people and soldiers, a lot of soldiers, were being killed from long distance. I said, "If you keep doing that, you're going to be hit harder than anybody has ever been hit by a country before." And he said, "I understand, Your Excellency." He called me "Your Excellency." I wonder if he calls the other guy "Your Excellency." I doubt it. The other guy gave him everything. I mean, what kind of a deal was that? He walked out, gave him everything. You know that right now Afghanistan is one of the largest sellers of weapons in the world? They're selling the brand-new, beautiful weapons that we gave them. But think of it. He actually said to me, "But why, but why, do you show me a picture of my home?" I said, "You'll have to ask your people or one of your wives." But he could figure it out. And for 18 months we had not one attack on an American soldier by the Taliban. Eighteen months. And then we had that horrible day where soldiers were killed. I was not there because of a ridiculous election. But we had that horrible attack. And they also gave up Bagram, one of the biggest bases anywhere in the world, air bases, anywhere in the world. The longest runways, most powerful hardened, thickened runways. We gave it up. And I liked it not because of Afghanistan, I liked it because of China. It's one hour away from where China makes their nuclear weapons. And you know who has it now? China has it now. We were keeping that, and now China is likewise circling Taiwan, and Russian warships and nuclear submarines are operating 60 miles off the coast in Cuba. Do you know that? The press refuses to write about it. If that were me running this country and we had nuclear submarines in Cuba, I will tell you that headlines every day would be "What's Wrong With Our President?". You don't even hear this. You're not hearing about this. Russia has nuclear submarines and warships 60 miles away, Mr. Congressman. From Miami, by the way, happens to be here. Correct? In Cuba. That would not be stood for if it were somebody else. They don't want to mention it, but now maybe they will. And to the entire world, I tell you this, we want our hostages back — and they better be back before I assume office, or you will be paying a very big price. With our victory in November, the years of war, weakness and chaos will be over. I don't have wars. I had no wars, other than ISIS, which I defeated, but that was a war that was started. We had no wars. I could stop wars with a telephone call. I could stop wars with just a telephone call. It properly stated it would never start. We will replenish our military and build an iron dome missile defense system to ensure that no enemy can strike our homeland. And this great iron dome will be built entirely in the U.S.A. We're going to build it in the U.S.A. And Wisconsin, Wisconsin, just like I gave you that massive ship contract, and you're doing a very nice job, governor, right? Thank you, governor. And they're doing a great job. In fact, I had a little design change and we gave them a tremendous for, essentially, what we used to call destroyers. These are now the most beautiful. They look like yachts. I said, "We have to take the bow, and we have to make it a little nicer, and a little point at the top instead of a flat nose." And the people at the shipyards said, "This guy sort of knows what he's doing." We had the most beautiful ships, right, governor? And everybody sitting over there? And it was a big contract that everybody wanted. I gave it to Wisconsin, but we're going to have a lot of that built right here in the state of Wisconsin and all other states. Israel has an Iron Dome. They have a missile defense system. Three hundred forty-two missiles were shot into Israel, and only one got through a little bit. It was badly wounded, it fell to the ground, but most of them are — And Ronald Reagan wanted this many years ago, but we really didn't have the technology many years ago. Remember, they called it starship, spaceship, anything to mock him. But he was a very good president, very, very good. But now we have unbelievable technology. And why should other countries have this, and we don't? No, no, we're going to build an iron dome over our country, and we're going to be sure that nothing can come and harm our people. And again, from an economic development standpoint, I'm going to make it all right here. No more sending it out to other countries in order to help. It's America first, America first. We will unleash the power of American innovation, and as we do, we will soon be on the verge of finding the cures to cancer, Alzheimer's disease and many other diseases. We're going to get to the bottom of it. You remember this gentleman that I don't want to mention, other than one time I had to, because when you say "the 10 worst," I had to do it. I didn't want anybody to be confused. But this man said we're going to find a cure to cancer; nothing happened. We're going to get to the cure for cancer and Alzheimer's and so many other things. We're so close to doing something great. But we need a leader that will let it be done. We will not have men playing in women's sports. That will end immediately. And we will restore and renovate our nation's once-great cities, making them safe, clean and beautiful again. And that includes our nation's capital, which is a horrible killing field. So many things — they leave from Wisconsin, they go to look at the Washington Monument, they end up getting stabbed, killed or shot. We will be, very soon, very proud of our capital again, Washington, D.C. America's on the cusp of a new golden age, but we will have the courage to seize it. We're going to take it, we're going to make it a current — I mean, we're going to bring this into a golden age like never seen before. Remember this: China wants to do it, Japan wants to do it. All of these countries want to do it. We have to produce massive amounts of energy. If we're going to produce the new — if you look at some of the things that have been done, and some of the things that we're going to do. But A.I. needs tremendous — literally, twice the electricity that's available now in our country, can you imagine? But instead we're spending places where they recharge electric cars. They built eight chargers at a certain location, toward the Midwest. Eight chargers for $9 billion? Think of them as a tank for filling up your gas. Think of it. They spent $9 billion on eight chargers, three of which didn't work. And if you are going to do this all over our country, this crazy electric Band-Aid. If you're going to do this … And by the way, I'm all for electric. They have their application. But if somebody wants to buy a gas-powered car, gasoline-powered car, or a hybrid, they're going to be able to do it. And we're going to make that change on Day 1. So, to conclude, just a few short days ago, my journey with you nearly ended. We know that. And yet, here we are tonight, all gathered together, talking about the future, promise and a total renewal of a thing we love very much. It's called America. We live in a world of miracles. None of us knows God's plan, or where life's adventure will take us. I want to thank Franklin Graham for being here tonight; he's an outstanding man. He wrote me a note recently; I have a lot of respect for him. "Sir, I love your storytelling, I think it's great, in front of these big rallies, but, sir, please do me one favor. It won't make any difference. Please. Don't use any foul language." I was a little embarrassed, I said. He said, "It won't make any difference." Actually, it does, the story's not quite as good, but I've been very good. The story is not quite as good, to be honest. I've got to have a little talk with Franklin, but he was great. He's a great gentleman, his father was so incredible, Billy Graham. My father used to love taking me to see Billy Graham. My father would take me to see Billy Graham at Yankee Stadium. He had the biggest rallies you've ever seen. He was a good rally guy, too. But he'd get up and he was a fantastic guy. My father loved Billy Graham. But I love Franklin Graham, I think Franklin's been fantastic. And I'm trying, I'm just working so hard to adhere to his note to me. I'm working hard on it, Franklin. But if the events of last Saturday make anything clear, it is that every single moment we have on Earth is a gift from God. We have to make the most of every day for the people and for the country that we love. The attacker in Pennsylvania wanted to stop our movement, but the truth is, the movement has never been about me. It has always been about you. It's your movement. It's the biggest movement in the history of our country by far. It can't be stopped. It can't be stopped. It has always been about the hardworking, patriotic citizens of America. For too long, our nation has settled for too little. We settled for too little. We've given everything to other nations, to other people. You have been told to lower your expectations and to accept less for your families. I am here tonight with the opposite message: Your expectations are not big enough. They're not big enough. It is time to start expecting and demanding the best leadership in the world, leadership that is bold, dynamic, relentless and fearless. We can do that. We are Americans. Ambition is our heritage. Greatness is our birthright. But as long as our energies are spent fighting each other, our destiny will remain out of reach. And that's not acceptable. We must instead take that energy and use it to realize our country's true potential — and write our own thrilling chapter of the American story. We can do it together. We will unite. We are going to come together and success will bring us together. It is a story of love, sacrifice and so many other things. And remember the word: Devotion. It's unmatched devotion. Our American ancestors crossed the Delaware, survived the icy winter at Valley Forge and defeated a mighty empire to establish our cherished republic. They fought so hard, they lost so many. They pushed thousands and thousands of miles across a dangerous frontier, taming the wilderness to build a life and a magnificent home for their family. They packed their families into covered wagons, trekked across hazardous trails. Scaled towering mountains and braved rivers and rapids to stake their claim on the wide-open, new and very beautiful frontier. When our way of life was threatened, American patriots marched onto the battlefield, raced into enemy strongholds and stared down death — and stared down those enemies — to keep alive the flame of freedom. At Yorktown, Gettysburg, and Midway, they joined the roll call of immortal heroes. So many — just so many heroes, so many great, great people. And we have to cherish those people. We can't forget those people. We have to cherish those people. And building monuments to those great people is a good thing, not a bad thing. They saved our country. No challenge was too much. No hardship was too great. No enemy was too fierce. Together, these patriots soldiered on and endured, and they prevailed. Because they had faith in each other, faith in their country, and above all, they had faith in their God. Just like our ancestors, we must now come together, rise above past differences. Any disagreements have to be put aside, and go forward united as one people, one nation, pledging allegiance to one great, beautiful — I think it's so beautiful — American flag. Tonight, I ask for your partnership, for your support and I am humbly asking for your vote. I want your vote. We're going to make our country great again. Every day, I will strive to honor the trust you have placed in me, and I will never, ever let you down. I promise that. I will never let you down. To all of the forgotten men and women who have been neglected, abandoned and left behind, you will be forgotten no longer. We will press forward, and together, we will win, win, win. Win, win, win, win, win, win. Nothing will sway us. Nothing will slow us. And no one will ever stop us. No matter what dangers come our way, no matter what obstacles lie in our path, we will keep striving toward our shared and glorious destiny — and we will not fail. We will not fail. Together, we will save this country, we will restore the republic, and we will usher in the rich and wonderful tomorrows that our people so truly deserve. America's future will be bigger, better, bolder, brighter, happier, stronger, freer, greater and more united than ever before. And quite simply put, we will very quickly make America great again. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Wisconsin. God bless you, God bless you, Wisconsin, and God bless the United States of America, our great country. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. Source: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-accepting-the-presidential-nomination-the-republican-national-convention-milwaukee