Search this site

53rd Inauguration: Clinton’s Second Inaugural Address January 20, 1997 My fellow citizens : At this last presidential inauguration of the 20th century, let us lift our eyes toward the challenges that await us in the next century. It is our great good fortune that time and chance have put us not only at the edge of a new century, in a new millennium, but on the edge of a bright new prospect in human affairs, a moment that will define our course, and our character, for decades to come. We must keep our old democracy forever young. Guided by the ancient vision of a promised land, let us set our sights upon a land of new promise. The promise of America was born in the 18th century out of the bold conviction that we are all created equal. It was extended and preserved in the 19th century, when our nation spread across the continent, saved the union, and abolished the awful scourge of slavery. Then, in turmoil and triumph, that promise exploded onto the world stage to make this the American Century. And what a century it has been. America became the world's mightiest industrial power; saved the world from tyranny in two world wars and a long cold war; and time and again, reached out across the globe to millions who, like us, longed for the blessings of liberty. Along the way, Americans produced a great middle class and security in old age; built unrivaled centers of learning and opened public schools to all; split the atom and explored the heavens; invented the computer and the microchip; and deepened the wellspring of justice by making a revolution in civil rights for African Americans and all minorities, and extending the circle of citizenship, opportunity and dignity to women. Now, for the third time, a new century is upon us, and another time to choose. We began the 19th century with a choice, to spread our nation from coast to coast. We began the 20th century with a choice, to harness the Industrial Revolution to our values of free enterprise, conservation, and human decency. Those choices made all the difference. At the dawn of the 21st century a free people must now choose to shape the forces of the Information Age and the global society, to unleash the limitless potential of all our people, and, yes, to form a more perfect union. When last we gathered, our march to this new future seemed less certain than it does today. We vowed then to set a clear course to renew our nation. In these four years, we have been touched by tragedy, exhilarated by challenge, strengthened by achievement. America stands alone as the world's indispensable nation. Once again, our economy is the strongest on Earth. Once again, we are building stronger families, thriving communities, better educational opportunities, a cleaner environment. Problems that once seemed destined to deepen now bend to our efforts: our streets are safer and record numbers of our fellow citizens have moved from welfare to work. And once again, we have resolved for our time a great debate over the role of government. Today we can declare: Government is not the problem, and government is not the solution. We,- the American people, we are the solution. Our founders understood that well and gave us a democracy strong enough to endure for centuries, flexible enough to face our common challenges and advance our common dreams in each new day. As times change, so government must change. We need a new government for a new century - humble enough not to try to solve all our problems for us, but strong enough to give us the tools to solve our problems for ourselves; a government that is smaller, lives within its means, and does more with less. Yet where it can stand up for our values and interests in the world, and where it can give Americans the power to make a real difference in their everyday lives, government should do more, not less. The preeminent mission of our new government is to give all Americans an opportunity,- not a guarantee, but a real opportunity to build better lives. Beyond that, my fellow citizens, the future is up to us. Our founders taught us that the preservation of our liberty and our union depends upon responsible citizenship. And we need a new sense of responsibility for a new century. There is work to do, work that government alone cannot do: teaching children to read; hiring people off welfare rolls; coming out from behind locked doors and shuttered windows to help reclaim our streets from drugs and gangs and crime; taking time out of our own lives to serve others. Each and every one of us, in our own way, must assume personal responsibility, not only for ourselves and our families, but for our neighbors and our nation. Our greatest responsibility is to embrace a new spirit of community for a new century. For any one of us to succeed, we must succeed as one America. The challenge of our past remains the challenge of our future, will we be one nation, one people, with one common destiny, or not? Will we all come together, or come apart? The divide of race has been America's constant curse. And each new wave of immigrants gives new targets to old prejudices. Prejudice and contempt, cloaked in the pretense of religious or political conviction are no different. These forces have nearly destroyed our nation in the past. They plague us still. They fuel the fanaticism of terror. And they torment the lives of millions in fractured nations all around the world. These obsessions cripple both those who hate and, of course, those who are hated, robbing both of what they might become. We cannot, we will not, succumb to the dark impulses that lurk in the far regions of the soul everywhere. We shall overcome them. And we shall replace them with the generous spirit of a people who feel at home with one another. Our rich texture of racial, religious and political diversity will be a Godsend in the 21st century. Great rewards will come to those who can live together, learn together, work together, forge new ties that bind together. As this new era approaches we can already see its broad outlines. Ten years ago, the Internet was the mystical province of physicists; today, it is a commonplace encyclopedia for millions of schoolchildren. Scientists now are decoding the blueprint of human life. Cures for our most feared illnesses seem close at hand. The world is no longer divided into two hostile camps. Instead, now we are building bonds with nations that once were our adversaries. Growing connections of commerce and culture give us a chance to lift the fortunes and spirits of people the world over. And for the very first time in all of history, more people on this planet live under democracy than dictatorship. My fellow Americans, as we look back at this remarkable century, we may ask, can we hope not just to follow, but even to surpass the achievements of the 20th century in America and to avoid the awful bloodshed that stained its legacy? To that question, every American here and every American in our land today must answer a resounding "Yes." This is the heart of our task. With a new vision of government, a new sense of responsibility, a new spirit of community, we will sustain America's journey. The promise we sought in a new land we will find again in a land of new promise. In this new land, education will be every citizen's most prized possession. Our schools will have the highest standards in the world, igniting the spark of possibility in the eyes of every girl and every boy. And the doors of higher education will be open to all. The knowledge and power of the Information Age will be within reach not just of the few, but of every classroom, every library, every child. Parents and children will have time not only to work, but to read and play together. And the plans they make at their kitchen table will be those of a better home, a better job, the certain chance to go to college. Our streets will echo again with the laughter of our children, because no one will try to shoot them or sell them drugs anymore. Everyone who can work, will work, with today's permanent under class part of tomorrow's growing middle class. New miracles of medicine at last will reach not only those who can claim care now, but the children and hardworking families too long denied. We will stand mighty for peace and freedom, and maintain a strong defense against terror and destruction. Our children will sleep free from the threat of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. Ports and airports, farms and factories will thrive with trade and innovation and ideas. And the world's greatest democracy will lead a whole world of democracies. Our land of new promise will be a nation that meets its obligations, a nation that balances its budget, but never loses the balance of its values. A nation where our grandparents have secure retirement and health care, and their grandchildren know we have made the reforms necessary to sustain those benefits for their time. A nation that fortifies the world's most productive economy even as it protects the great natural bounty of our water, air, and majestic land. And in this land of new promise, we will have reformed our politics so that the voice of the people will always speak louder than the din of narrow interests, regaining the participation and deserving the trust of all Americans. Fellow citizens, let us build that America, a nation ever moving forward toward realizing the full potential of all its citizens. Prosperity and power, yes, they are important, and we must maintain them. But let us never forget: The greatest progress we have made, and the greatest progress we have yet to make, is in the human heart. In the end, all the world's wealth and a thousand armies are no match for the strength and decency of the human spirit. Thirty-four years ago, the man whose life we celebrate today spoke to us down there, at the other end of this Mall, in words that moved the conscience of a nation. Like a prophet of old, he told of his dream that one day America would rise up and treat all its citizens as equals before the law and in the heart. Martin Luther King's dream was the American Dream. His quest is our quest: the ceaseless striving to live out our true creed. Our history has been built on such dreams and labors. And by our dreams and labors we will redeem the promise of America in the 21st century. To that effort I pledge all my strength and every power of my office. I ask the members of Congress here to join in that pledge. The American people returned to office a President of one party and a Congress of another. Surely, they did not do this to advance the politics of petty bickering and extreme partisanship they plainly deplore. No, they call on us instead to be repairers of the breach, and to move on with America's mission. America demands and deserves big things from us,- and nothing big ever came from being small. Let us remember the timeless wisdom of Cardinal Bernardin, when facing the end of his own life. He said, "It is wrong to waste the precious gift of time, on acrimony and division." Fellow citizens, we must not waste the precious gift of this time. For all of us are on that same journey of our lives, and our journey, too, will come to an end. But the journey of our America must go on. And so, my fellow Americans, we must be strong, for there is much to dare. The demands of our time are great and they are different. Let us meet them with faith and courage, with patience and a grateful and happy heart. Let us shape the hope of this day into the noblest chapter in our history. Yes, let us build our bridge. A bridge wide enough and strong enough for every American to cross over to a blessed land of new promise. May those generations whose faces we cannot yet see, whose names we may never know, say of us here that we led our beloved land into a new century with the American Dream alive for all her children; with the American promise of a more perfect union a reality for all her people; with America's bright flame of freedom spreading throughout all the world. From the height of this place and the summit of this century, let us go forth. May God strengthen our hands for the good work ahead, and always, always bless our America. Source: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/clinton2.asp

52nd Inauguration: Clinton’s First Inaugural Address January 20, 1993 My fellow citizens : Today we celebrate the mystery of American renewal. This ceremony is held in the depth of winter. But, by the words we speak and the faces we show the world, we force the spring. A spring reborn in the world's oldest democracy, that brings forth the vision and courage to reinvent America. When our founders boldly declared America's independence to the world and our purposes to the Almighty, they knew that America, to endure, would have to change. Not change for change's sake, but change to preserve America's ideals; life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. Though we march to the music of our time, our mission is timeless. Each generation of Americans must define what it means to be an American. On behalf of our nation, I salute my predecessor, President Bush, for his half-century of service to America. And I thank the millions of men and women whose steadfastness and sacrifice triumphed over Depression, fascism and Communism. Today, a generation raised in the shadows of the Cold War assumes new responsibilities in a world warmed by the sunshine of freedom but threatened still by ancient hatreds and new plagues. Raised in unrivaled prosperity, we inherit an economy that is still the world's strongest, but is weakened by business failures, stagnant wages, increasing inequality, and deep divisions among our people. When George Washington first took the oath I have just sworn to uphold, news traveled slowly across the land by horseback and across the ocean by boat. Now, the sights and sounds of this ceremony are broadcast instantaneously to billions around the world. Communications and commerce are global; investment is mobile; technology is almost magical; and ambition for a better life is now universal. We earn our livelihood in peaceful competition with people all across the earth. Profound and powerful forces are shaking and remaking our world, and the urgent question of our time is whether we can make change our friend and not our enemy. This new world has already enriched the lives of millions of Americans who are able to compete and win in it. But when most people are working harder for less; when others cannot work at all; when the cost of health care devastates families and threatens to bankrupt many of our enterprises, great and small; when fear of crime robs law-abiding citizens of their freedom; and when millions of poor children cannot even imagine the lives we are calling them to lead, we have not made change our friend. We know we have to face hard truths and take strong steps. But we have not done so. Instead, we have drifted, and that drifting has eroded our resources, fractured our economy, and shaken our confidence. Though our challenges are fearsome, so are our strengths. And Americans have ever been a restless, questing, hopeful people. We must bring to our task today the vision and will of those who came before us. From our revolution, the Civil War, to the Great Depression to the civil rights movement, our people have always mustered the determination to construct from these crises the pillars of our history. Thomas Jefferson believed that to preserve the very foundations of our nation, we would need dramatic change from time to time. Well, my fellow citizens, this is our time. Let us embrace it. Our democracy must be not only the envy of the world but the engine of our own renewal. There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America. And so today, we pledge an end to the era of deadlock and drift; a new season of American renewal has begun. To renew America, we must be bold. We must do what no generation has had to do before. We must invest more in our own people, in their jobs, in their future, and at the same time cut our massive debt. And we must do so in a world in which we must compete for every opportunity. It will not be easy; it will require sacrifice. But it can be done, and done fairly, not choosing sacrifice for its own sake, but for our own sake. We must provide for our nation the way a family provides for its children. Our Founders saw themselves in the light of posterity. We can do no less. Anyone who has ever watched a child's eyes wander into sleep knows what posterity is. Posterity is the world to come; the world for whom we hold our ideals, from whom we have borrowed our planet, and to whom we bear sacred responsibility. We must do what America does best: offer more opportunity to all and demand responsibility from all. It is time to break the bad habit of expecting something for nothing, from our government or from each other. Let us all take more responsibility, not only for ourselves and our families but for our communities and our country. To renew America, we must revitalize our democracy. This beautiful capital, like every capital since the dawn of civilization, is often a place of intrigue and calculation. Powerful people maneuver for position and worry endlessly about who is in and who is out, who is up and who is down, forgetting those people whose toil and sweat sends us here and pays our way. Americans deserve better, and in this city today, there are people who want to do better. And so I say to all of us here, let us resolve to reform our politics, so that power and privilege no longer shout down the voice of the people. Let us put aside personal advantage so that we can feel the pain and see the promise of America. Let us resolve to make our government a place for what Franklin Roosevelt called "bold, persistent experimentation," a government for our tomorrows, not our yesterdays. Let us give this capital back to the people to whom it belongs. To renew America, we must meet challenges abroad as well at home. There is no longer division between what is foreign and what is domestic; the world economy, the world environment, the world AIDS crisis, the world arms race; they affect us all. Today, as an old order passes, the new world is more free but less stable. Communism's collapse has called forth old animosities and new dangers. Clearly America must continue to lead the world we did so much to make. While America rebuilds at home, we will not shrink from the challenges, nor fail to seize the opportunities, of this new world. Together with our friends and allies, we will work to shape change, lest it engulf us. When our vital interests are challenged, or the will and conscience of the international community is defied, we will act; with peaceful diplomacy when ever possible, with force when necessary. The brave Americans serving our nation today in the Persian Gulf, in Somalia, and wherever else they stand are testament to our resolve. But our greatest strength is the power of our ideas, which are still new in many lands. Across the world, we see them embraced, and we rejoice. Our hopes, our hearts, our hands, are with those on every continent who are building democracy and freedom. Their cause is America's cause. The American people have summoned the change we celebrate today. You have raised your voices in an unmistakable chorus. You have cast your votes in historic numbers. And you have changed the face of Congress, the presidency and the political process itself. Yes, you, my fellow Americans have forced the spring. Now, we must do the work the season demands. To that work I now turn, with all the authority of my office. I ask the Congress to join with me. But no president, no Congress, no government, can undertake this mission alone. My fellow Americans, you, too, must play your part in our renewal. I challenge a new generation of young Americans to a season of service; to act on your idealism by helping troubled children, keeping company with those in need, reconnecting our torn communities. There is so much to be done; enough indeed for millions of others who are still young in spirit to give of themselves in service, too. In serving, we recognize a simple but powerful truth, we need each other. And we must care for one another. Today, we do more than celebrate America; we rededicate ourselves to the very idea of America. An idea born in revolution and renewed through two centuries of challenge. An idea tempered by the knowledge that, but for fate we, the fortunate and the unfortunate, might have been each other. An idea ennobled by the faith that our nation can summon from its myriad diversity the deepest measure of unity. An idea infused with the conviction that America's long heroic journey must go forever upward. And so, my fellow Americans, at the edge of the 21st century, let us begin with energy and hope, with faith and discipline, and let us work until our work is done. The scripture says, "And let us not be weary in well-doing, for in due season, we shall reap, if we faint not." From this joyful mountaintop of celebration, we hear a call to service in the valley. We have heard the trumpets. We have changed the guard. And now, each in our way, and with God's help, we must answer the call. Thank you, and God bless you all. Source: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/clinton1.asp

Great Britain : Parliament - The Currency Act; April 19, 1764 WHEREAS great quantities of paper bills of credit have been created and issued in his Majesty's colonies or plantations in America, by virtue of acts, orders, resolutions, or votes of assembly, making and declaring such bills of credit to be legal tender in payment of money: and whereas such bills of credit have greatly depreciated in their value, by means whereof debts have been discharged with a much less value than was contracted for, to the great discouragement and prejudice of the trade and commerce of his Majesty's subjects, by occasioning confusion in dealings, and lessening credit in the said colonies or plantations: for remedy whereof, may it please your most excellent Majesty, that it may be enacted; and be it enacted by the King's most excellent majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, That from and after the first day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, no act, order, resolution, or vote of assembly, in any of his Majesty's colonies or plantations in America, shall be made, for creating or issuing any paper bills, or bills of credit of any kind or denomination whatsoever, declaring such paper bills, or bills of credit, to be legal tender in payment of any bargains, contracts, debts, dues, or demands whatsoever; and every clause or provision which shall hereafter be inserted in any act, order, resolution, or vote of assembly, contrary to this act, shall be null and void. II. And whereas the great quantities of paper bills, or bills of credit, which are now actually in circulation and currency in several colonies or plantations in America, emitted in pursuance of acts of assembly declaring such bills a legal tender, make it highly expedient that the conditions and terms, upon which such bills have been emitted, should not be varied or prolonged, so as to continue the legal tender thereof beyond the terms respectively fixed by such acts for calling in and discharging such bills; be it therefore enacted by the authority aforesaid, That every act, order, resolution, or vote of assembly, in any of the said colonies or plantations, which shall be made to prolong the legal tender of any paper bills, or bills of credit, which are now subsisting and current in any of the said colonies or plantations in America, beyond the times fixed for the calling in, sinking, and discharging of such paper bills, or bills of credit, shall be null and void. III. And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any governor or commander in chief for the time being, in all or any of the said colonies or plantations, shall, from and after the said first day of September, one thousand seven hundred and sixty four, give his assent to any act or order of assembly contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act, every such governor or commander in chief shall, for every such offence, forfeit and pay the sum of one thousand pounds, and shall be immediately dismissed from his government, and for ever after rendered incapable of any public office or place of trust. IV. Provided always, That nothing in this act shall extend to alter or repeal an act passed in the twenty fourth year of the reign of his late majesty King George the Second, intituled, An act to regulate and restrain paper bills of credit in his Majesty's colonies or plantations of Rhode Island and Providence plantations, Connecticut, the Massachuset's Bay, and New Hampshire, in America, and to prevent the same being legal tenders in payments of money. V. Provided also, That nothing herein contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to make any of the bills now subsisting in any of the said colonies a legal tender. Source: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/curency_act_1764.asp

Chap. VII.— An Act respecting fugitives from justice, and persons escaping from the service of their masters. Section 1.  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the executive authority of any state in the Union, or of either of the territories northwest or south of the river Ohio, shall demand any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any such state or territory to which such person shall have fled, and shall moreover produce the copy of an indictment found, or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any state or territory as aforesaid, charging the person so demanded, with having committed treason, felony or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the state or territory from whence the person so charged fled,  it shall be the duty of the executive authority of the state or territory to which such person shall have fled, to cause him or her to be arrested and secured, and notice of the arrest to be given to the executive authority making such demand, or to the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and to cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear:  But if no such agent shall appear within six months from the time of the arrest, the prisoner may be discharged.  And all costs or expenses incurred in the apprehending, securing, and transmitting such fugitive to the state or territory making such demand, shall be paid by such state or territory. Sec. 2.  And be it further enacted,  That any agent, appointed as aforesaid, who shall receive the fugitive into his custody, shall be empowered to transport him or her to the state or territory from which he or she shall have fled.  And if any person or persons shall by force set at liberty, or rescue the fugitive from such agent while transporting, as aforesaid, the person or persons so offending shall, on conviction, be fined not exceeding five hundred dollars, and be imprisoned not exceeding one year. Sec. 3.  And be it also enacted,  That when a person held to labour in any of the United States, or in either of the territories on the northwest or south of the river Ohio, under the laws thereof, shall escape into any other of the said states or territory, the person to whom such labour or service may be due, his agent or attorney, is hereby empowered to seize or arrest such fugitive from labour, (b) and to take him or her before any judge of the circuit or district courts of the United States, residing or being within the state, or being any magistrate of a county, city or town corporate, wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made, and upon proof to the satisfaction of such judge or magistrate, either by oral testimony or affidavit taken before and certified by a magistrate of any such state or territory, that the person so seized or arrested, doth, under the laws of the state or territory from which he or she fled, owe service or labour to the person claiming him or her, it shall be the duty of such judge or magistrate to give a certificate thereof to such claimant, his agent or attorney, which shall be sufficient warrant for removing the said fugitive from labour, to the state or territory from which he or she fled. Sec. 4.  And be it further enacted , That any person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct or hinder such claimant, his agent or attorney in so seizing or arresting such fugitive from labour, or shall rescue such fugitive from such claimant, his agent or attorney when so arrested pursuant to the authority herein given or declared; or shall harbor or conceal such person after notice that he or she was a fugitive from labour, as aforesaid, shall for either of the said offences, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars.  Which penalty may be recovered by and for the benefit of such claimant, by the action of debt, in any court proper to try the same; saving moreover to the person claiming such labour or service, his right of action for or on account of the said injuries or either of them. Approved, February 12, 1793 Source: Statutes at Large , 2nd Congress, 2nd Session, Ch. 7, p. 302. Image Source: https://www.statutesandstories.com/blog_html/fugitive-slave-act-of-1793-a-constitutionally-authorized-law-that-bitterly-divided-the-country/

To the Members of the African Society in the city of New York Gentlemen, I take the liberty to dedicate an address to my poor brethren to you. If you think it is likely to do good among them, I do not doubt but you will take it under your care. You have discovered so much kindness and good will to those you thought were oppressed, and had no helper, that I am sure you will not despise what I have wrote, if you judge it will be of any service to them. I have nothing to add, but only to wish that “the blessing of many ready to perish, may come upon you.” I am Gentlemen, Your Servant, Jupiter Hammon To the Public: An Address to the Negroes of the State of New York When I am writing to you with a design to say something to you for your good, and with a view to promote your happiness, I can with truth and sincerity join with the apostle Paul, when speaking of his own nation the Jews, and say, “That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.” Yes my dear brethren, when I think of you, which is very often, and of the poor, despised and miserable state you are in, as to the things of this world, and when I think of your ignorance and stupidity, and the great wickedness of the most of you, I am pained to the heart. It is at times, almost too much for human nature to bear, and I am obliged to turn my thoughts from the subject or endeavour to still my mind, by considering that it is permitted thus to be, by that God who governs all things, who seteth up one and pulleth down another. While I have been thinking on this subject, I have frequently had great struggles in my own mind, and have been at a loss to know what to do. I have wanted exceedingly to say something to you, to call upon you with the tenderness of a father and friend, and to give you the last, and I may say, dying advice, of an old man, who wishes our best good in this world, and in the world to come. But while I have had such desires, a sense of my own ignorance, and unfitness to teach others, has frequently discouraged me from attempting to say any thing to you; yet when I thought of your situation, I could not rest easy. When I was at Hartford in Connecticut, where I lived during the war, I published several pieces which were well received, not only by those of my own colour, but by a number of the white people, who thought they might do good among their servants. This is one consideration, among others, that emboldens me now to publish what I have written to you. Another is, I think you will be more likely to listen to what is said, when you know it comes from a negro, one your own nation and colour, and therefore can have no interest in deceiving you, or in saying any thing to you, but what he really thinks is your interest and duty to comply with. My age, I think, gives me some right to speak to you, and reason to expect you will hearken to my advice. I am now upwards of seventy years old, and cannot expect, though I am well, and able to do almost any kind of business, to live much longer. I have passed the common bounds set for man, and must soon go the way of all the earth. I have had more experience in the world than the most of you, and I have seen a great deal of the vanity, and wickedness of it. I have great reason to be thankful that my lot has been so much better than most slaves have had. I suppose I have had more advantages and privileges than most of you, who are slaves have ever known, and I believe more than many white people have enjoyed, for which I desire to bless God, and pray that he may bless those who have given them to me. I do not, my dear friends, say these things about myself to make you think that I am wiser or better than others; but that you might hearken, without prejudice, to what I have to say to you on the following particulars. 1st. Respecting obedience to masters. Now whether it is right, and lawful, in the Sight of God, for them to make slaves of us or not, I am certain that while we are slaves,  it is our duty to obey our masters, in all their lawful commands, and mind them unless we are bid to do that which we know to be sin, or forbidden in God’s word. The apostle Paul says, “Servants be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling in singleness in your heart as unto Christ: Not with eye service, as men pleasers, but as the servants of Christ doing the will of God from the heart: With good will doing service to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatever thing a man doeth the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.” –Here is a plain command of God for us to obey our masters.  It may seem hard for us, if we think our masters wrong in holding us slaves, to obey in all things, but who of us dare dispute with God!  He has commanded us to obey, and we ought to do it cheerfully, and freely.  This should be done by us, not only because God commands, but because our own peace and comfort depend upon it.  As we depend upon our masters, for what we eat and drink and wear, and for all our comfortable things in this world, we cannot be happy, unless we please them.  This we cannot do without obeying tem freely, without muttering or finding fault.  If a servant strives to please his master and studies and takes pains to do it, I believe there are but few masters who would use such a servant cruelly.  Good servants frequently make good masters.  If your master is really hard, unreasonable and cruel, there is no way so likely for you to convince him of it, as always to obey his commands, and try to serve him, and take care of his interest, and try to promote it all in your power.  If you are proud and stubborn and always finding fault, your master will think the fault lies wholly on your side, but if you are humble, and meek, and bear all things patiently, your master may think he is wrong, if he does not, his neighbors will be apt to see it, and will befriend you, and try to alter his conduct.  If this does not do, you must cry to him, who has the hearts of all men in his hands, and turneth them as the rivers of waters are turned. 2d: The particular I would mention is honesty and faithfulness, You must suffer me now to deal plainly with you, my dear brethren, for I do not mean to flatter, or omit speaking the truth, whether it is for you or against you.  How many of you are there who allow yourselves in stealing from your masters.  It is very wicked for you not to take care of your masters goods, but how much worse is it to pilfer and steal from them, whenever you think you shall not be found out.  This you must know is very wicked and provoking to God.  There are none of you so ignorant, but that you must know that this is wrong.  Though you may try to excuse yourselves, by saying that your masters are unjust toyou, and though you may try to quiet your consciences in this way, yet if you are honest in owning the truth you must think it is as wicked, and on some accounts more wicked to steal from your masters, than from others. We cannot certainly, have any excuse either for taking any thing that belongs to our masters without their leave, or for being unfaithful in their business. It is our duty to be faithful, not with eye service as men please.  We have no right to stay when we are sent on errands, any longer than to do the business we were sent upon.  All the time spent idly, is spent wickedly, and is unfaithfulness to our masters.  In these things I must say, that I think many of you are guilty.  I know that many of you endeavor to excuse yourselves, and say that you have nothing that you can call your own, and that you are under great temptations to be unfaithful and take from your masters.   But this will not do, God will certainly punish you for stealing and for being unfaithful.  All that we have to mind is our own duty.  If God has put us in bad circumstances that is not our fault and he will not punish us for it.  If any are wicked in keeping us so, we cannot help it, they must answer to God for it.  Nothing will serve as an excuse to us for not doing our duty.  The same God will judge both them and us.  Pray then my dear friends, fear to offend in this way, but be faithful to God, to your masters, and to your own souls. The next thing I would mention, and warn you against, IS profaneness. This you know is forbidden by God. Christ tells us, “swear not at all,” and again it is said “thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless, that taketh his name in vain.” Now though the great God has forbidden it, yet how dreadfully profane are many, and I don’t know but I may say the most of you? How common is it to hear you take the terrible and awful name of the great God in vain?-To swear by it, and by Jesus Christ, his Son-How common is it to hear yon wish damnation to your companions, and to your own souls and to sport with in the name of Heaven and Hell, as if there were no such places for you to hope for, or to fear, Oh my friends, be warned to forsake this dreadful sin of profaneness. Pray my dear friends, believe and realize, that there is a God-that he is great and terrible beyond what you can think-that he keeps you in life every moment-and that he can send you to that awful Hell, that you laugh at, in an instant, and confine you there for ever, and that he will certainly do it, if you do not repent. You certainly do not believe, that there is a God, or that there is a Heaven or Hell, or you would never trifle with them. It would make you shudder, if you heard others do it, if you believe them as much, as you believe any thing you see with your bodily eyes. I have heard some learned and good men say, that the heathen, and all that worshiped false Gods, never spoke lightly or irreverently of their Gods, they never took their names in vain, or jested with those things which they held sacred. Now why should the true God, who made all things, be treated worse in this respect, than those false Gods, that were made of wood and stone, I believe it is because Satan tempts men to do it, He tried to make them love their false Gods, and to speak well of them, but he wishes to have men think lightly of the true God, to take his holy name in vain, and to scoff at, and make a jest of all things that are really good. You may think that Satan has not power to do so much, and have so great influence on the minds of men: But the scripture says, “he goeth about like a roaring Lion, seeking whom he may devour-That he is the prince of the power of the air-and that he rules in the hearts of the children of disobedience,-and that wicked men are led captive by him, to do his will.” All those of you who are profane, are serving the Devil. You are doing what he tempts and desires you to do. If you could see him with your bodily eyes, would you like to make an agreement with him, to serve him, and do as he bid you. I believe most of you would be shocked at this, but you may be certain that all of you who allow yourselves in this sin, are as really serving him, and to just as good purpose, as if you met him, and promised to dishonor God, and serve him with all your might. Do you believe this? It is true whether you believe it or not, Some of you to excuse yourselves, may plead the example of others, and say that you hear a great many white-people, who know more, than such poor ignorant negroes, as you are, and some who are rich and great gentlemen, swear, and talk profanely; and some of you may say this of your masters, and say no more than is true, But all this is not a sufficient excuse for you. You know that murder is wicked. If you saw your master kill a man, do you suppose this would be any excuse for you, if you .should commit the same crime? You must know it would not; nor will your hearing him curse and swear, and take the name of God in vain, or any other man, be he ever so great or rich, excuse you. God is greater than all other beings, and him we are bound to obey. To him we must give an account for every idle word that we speak. He will bring us all, rich and poor, white and black, to his judgment seat. If we are found among those who feared his name, and trembled at his word, we shall be called good and faithful servants. Our slavery will be at an end, and though ever so mean, low, and despited in this world, we shall sit with God in his kingdom as Kings and Priests, and rejoice forever, and ever. Do not then, my dear friends, take God’s holy name in vain, or speak profanely in any way. Let not the example of others lead you into the sin, but reverence and fear that great and fearful name, the Lord our God. I might now caution you against other sins to which you are exposed; but as I meant only to mention those you were exposed to, more than others, by your being slaves, I will conclude what I have to say to you, by advising you to become religious, and to make religion the great business of your lives. Now I acknowledge that liberty is a great thing, and worth seeking for, if we can get it honestly, and by our good conduct, prevail on our masters to set us free: Though for my own part I do not wish to be free, yet I should be glad, if others, especially the young negroes were to be free, for many of us, who are grown up slaves, and have always had masters to take care of us, should hardly know how to take care of ourselves; and it may be more for our own comfort to remain as we are. That .liberty is a great thing we may know from our own feelings, and we may likewise Judge so from the conduct of the white-people, in the late war. How much money has been spent, and how many lives has been lost, to defend their liberty. I must say that I have hoped that God would open their eyes, when they were so much engaged for liberty, to think of the state of the poor blacks, and to pity us. He has done it in some measure, and has raised us up many friends, for which we have reason to be thankful, and to hope in his mercy. What may be done further, he only knows, for known unto God are all his ways from the beginning. But this my dear brethren IS by no means, the greatest thing we have to be concerned about. Getting our liberty in this world, is nothing to our having the liberty of the children of God. Now the Bible tells us that we are all by nature, sinners, that we are slaves to sin and Satan, and that unless we are converted, or born again, we must be miserable forever. Christ says, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God, and all that do not see the kingdom of God, must be in the kingdom of darkness. There are but two places where all go after death, white and black, rich and poor; those places are Heaven and Hell. Heaven is a place made for those, who are born again, and who love God, and it is a place where they will be happy for ever. Hell IS a place made for those who hate God, and are his enemies, and where they will be miserable to all eternity. Now you may think you are not enemies to God, and do not hate him: But if your heart has not been changed, and you have not become true Christians, you certainly are enemies to God, and have been opposed to him ever since you were born. Many of you, I suppose, never think of this, and are almost as ignorant as the beasts that perish. Those of you who can read I must beg you to read the Bible, and whenever you can get time, study the Bible, and if you can get no other time, spare some of your time from sleep, and learn what the mind and will of God is. But what shall I say to them who cannot read. This lay with great weight on my mind, when I thought of writing to my poor brethren, but I hope that those who can read will take pity on them and read what I have to say to them. In hopes of this I will beg of you to spare no pains in trying to learn to read. If you are once engaged you may learn. Let all the time you can get be spent in trying to learn to read. Get those who can read to learn you, but remember, that what you learn for, is to read the Bible. If there was no Bible, it would be no matter whether you could read or not. Reading other books would do you no good. But the Bible is the word of God, and tells you what you must do to please God; it tells you how you may escape misery, and be happy for ever. If you see most people neglect the Bible, and many that can read never look into it, let it not harden you and make you think lightly of it, and that it is a book of no worth. All those who are really good, love the Bible, and meditate on it day and night. In the Bible God has told us every thing it is necessary we should know, in order to be happy here and hereafter. The Bible is a revelation of the mind and will of God to men. Therein we may learn, what God is. That he made all things by the power of his word; and that he made all things for his own glory, and not for our glory. That he is over all, and above all his creatures, and more above them that we can think or conceive-that they can do nothing without him-that he upholds them all, and will over-rule all things for his own glory. In the Bible likewise we are told what man is. That he was at first made holy, in the image of God, that he fell from that state of holiness, and became an enemy to God, and that since the fall, all the imaginations of the thoughts of his heart, are evil and only evil, and that continually. That the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. And that all mankind, were under the wrath, and curse of God, and must have been for ever  miserable, if they had been left to suffer what their sins deserved. It tells us that God, to save some of mankind, sent his Son into this world to die, in the room and stead of sinners, and that now God can save from eternal misery, all that believe in his Son, and take him for their saviour, and that all are called upon to repent, and believe in Jesus Christ. It tells us that those who do repent, and believe, and are friends to Christ, shall have many trials and sufferings in this world, but that they shall be happy forever, after death, and reign with Christ to all eternity. The Bible tells us that this world is a place of trial, and that there is no other time or place for us to alter, but in this life. If we are Christians when we die, we shall awake to the resurrection of life; if not, we shall awake to the resurrection of damnation. It tells us, we must all live in Heaven or Hell, be happy or miserable, and that without end. The Bible does not tell us of but two places, for all to go to. There is no place for innocent folks, that are not Christians. There is no place for ignorant folks, that did not know how to be Christians. What I mean is, that there is no place besides Heaven and Hell. These two places, will receive all mankind, for Christ says, there are but two sorts, he that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth abroad.-The Bible likewise tells us that this world, and all things in it shall be burnt up-and that “God has appointed a day in which he will judge the world, and that he will bring every secret thing whether it be good or bad into judgment that which is done in secret shall be declared on the house top.” I do not know, nor do I think any can tell, but that the day of judgment may last a thousand years. God could tell the state of all his creatures in a moment, but then every thing that every one has done, through his whole life is to be told, before the whole world of angels, and men. There, Oh how solemn is the thought! You, and I, must stand, and hear every thing we have thought or done, however secret, however wicked and vile, told before all the men and women that ever have been, or ever will be, and before all the angels, good and bad. Now my dear friends seeing the Bible is the word of God, and every thing in it is true, and it reveals such awful and glorious things, what can be more important than that you should learn to read it; and when you have learned to read, that you should study it day and night. There are some things very encouraging in God’s word for such ignorant creatures as we are; for God hath not chosen the rich of this world. Not many rich, not many noble are called, but God hath chosen the weak things of this world, and things which are not, to confound the things that are: And when the great and the rich refused coming to the gospel feast, the servant was told, to go into the highways, and hedges, and compel those poor creatures that he found there to come in. Now my brethren it seems to me, that there are no people that ought to attend to the hope of happiness in another world so much as we do. Most of us are cut off from comfort and happiness here in this world, and can expect nothing from It. Now seeing this is the case, why should we not take care to be happy after death. Why should we spend our whole lives in sinning against God: And be miserable in this world, and in the world to come. If we do thus, we shall certainly be the greatest fools. We shall be slaves here, and slaves forever. We cannot plead so great temptations to neglect religion as others. Riches and honours which drown the greater part of mankind, who have the gospel, in perdition, can be little or no temptations to us. We live so little time in this world that it is no matter how wretched and miserable we are, if it prepares us for heaven. What is forty, fifty, or sixty years, when compared to eternity. When thousands and millions of years have rolled away, this eternity will be no nigher coming to an end. Oh how glorious is an eternal life of happiness! And how dreadful, an eternity of misery. Those of us who have had religious masters, and have been taught to read the Bible, and have been brought by their example and teaching to a sense of divine things, how happy shall we be to meet them in heaven, where we shall join them in praising God forever. But if any of us have had such masters, and yet have lived and died wicked, how will it add to our misery to think of Our folly. If any of us, who have wicked and profane masters should become religious, how will our estates be changed in another world. Oh my friends, let me entreat of you to think on these things, and to live as if you believed them to be true. If you become Christians you will have reason to bless God forever, that you have been brought into a land where you have heard the gospel, though you have been slaves. If we should ever get to Heaven, we shall find nobody to reproach us for being black, or for being slaves. Let me beg of you my dear African brethren, to think very little of your bondage in this life, for your thinking of it will do you no good. If God designs to set us free, he will do it, in his own time, and way; but think of your bondage to sin and Satan, and do not rest, until you are delivered from it. We cannot be happy if we are ever so free or ever so rich, while we are servants of sin, and slaves to Satan. We must be miserable here, and to all eternity. I will conclude what I have to say with a few words to those negroes who have their liberty. The most of what I have said to those who are slaves may be of use to you, but you have more advantages, on some accounts, if you will improve your freedom, as you may do, than they. You have more time to read God’s holy word, and to take care of the salvation of your souls. Let me beg of you to spend your time in this way, or it will be better for you, if you had always been slaves.  If you think seriously of the matter, you must conclude, that if you do not use your freedom, to promote the salvation of your souls, it will not be of any lasting good to you.  Besides all this, if you are idle, and take to bad courses, you will hurt those of your brethren who are slaves, and do all in your power to prevent their being free.  Our great reason that is given by some for not freeing us, I understand is, that we should not know how to take care of ourselves, and should take to bad courses.  That we should be lazy and idle, and get drunk and steal.  Now all those of you, who follow any bad courses, and who do not take care to get an honest living by your labour and industry, are doing more to prevent our being free, than any body else.  Let me beg of you then for the sake of your own good and happiness, in time, and for eternity, and for the sake of your poor brethren, who are still in bondage “to lead quiet and peaceable lives in all Godliness and honesty,” and may God bless you, and bring yo to his kingdom, for Christ’s sake, Amen. Transcription Source: BlackPast, B. (2012, March 15). (1787) Jupiter Hammon, “An Address to the Negroes in the State of New York” . BlackPast.org . https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/1787-jupiter-hammon-address-negroes-state-new-york/ Image Source: https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbc0001.2019gen15736/?st=gallery

October 19, 1992 Jim Lehrer. Good evening. Welcome to this third and final debate among the three major candidates for President of the United States: Governor Bill Clinton, the Democratic nominee; President George Bush, the Republican nominee; and independent candidate Ross Perot. I am Jim Lehrer, of "The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour" on PBS. I will be the moderator for this debate, which is being sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. It will be 90 minutes long. It is happening before an audience on the campus of Michigan State University in East Lansing. The format was conceived by and agreed to by representatives of the Bush and Clinton campaigns. And it is somewhat different than those used in the earlier debates. I will ask questions for the first half under rules that permit followups. A panel of three other journalists will ask questions in the second half under rules that do not. As always, each candidate will have 2 minutes, up to 2 minutes, to make a closing statement. The order of those as well as that for the formal questioning were all determined by a drawing. Gentlemen, again, welcome. And again, good evening. Credibility It seems, from what some of those voters said at your Richmond debate and from polling and other data, that each of you, fairly or not, faces serious voter concerns about the underlying credibility and believability of what each of you says you would do as President in the next 4 years. Governor Clinton, in accordance with the draw, those concerns about you are first. You are promising to create jobs, reduce the deficit, reform the health care system, rebuild the infrastructure, guarantee college education for everyone who is qualified, among many other things, all with financial pain only for the very rich. Some people are having trouble, apparently, believing that is possible. Should they have that concern? Governor Clinton. No. There are many people who believe that the only way we can get this country turned around is to tax the middle class more and punish them more. But the truth is that middle class Americans are basically the only group of Americans who have been taxed more in the 1980's and during the last 12 years even though their incomes have gone down. The wealthiest Americans have been taxed much less even though their incomes have gone up. Middle class people will have their fair share of changing to do and many challenges to face, including the challenge of becoming constantly reeducated. But my plan is a departure from trickle-down economics, just cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans and getting out of the way. It's also a departure from tax-and-spend economics because you can't tax and divide an economy that isn't growing. I propose an American version of what works in other countries. I think we can do it better: invest and grow. I believe we can increase investment and reduce the deficit at the same time if we not only ask the wealthiest Americans and foreign corporations to pay their fair share, we also provide over $100 billion in tax relief in terms of incentives for new plants, new small businesses, new technologies, new housing, and for middle class families, and we have $140 billion of spending cuts. Invest and grow: raise some more money; spend the money on tax incentives to have growth in the private sector; take the money from the defense cuts and reinvest it in new transportation and communications and environmental cleanup systems. This will work. On this, as on so many other issues, I have a fundamental difference from the present administration. I don't believe trickle-down economics will work. Unemployment is up. Most people are working harder for less money than they were making 10 years ago. I think we can do better if we have the courage to change. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. President, a response. President Bush. Do I have one minute? Just the ground rules here. Mr. Lehrer. Well, you have roughly one minute. We can loosen that up a little bit. But go ahead. President Bush. He doesn't like trickle-down Government, but hey, I think he's talking about the Reagan-Bush years where we created 15 million jobs. The rich are paying a bigger percent of the total tax burden. What I don't like is trickle-down Government. I think Governor Clinton keeps talking about trickle-down, trickle-down, and he's still talking about spending more and taxing more. Government, he says, invest Government, grow Government. Government doesn't create jobs. If they do, they're make-work jobs. It's the private sector that creates jobs. And yes, we've got too many taxes on the American people, and we're spending too much. That's why I want to get the deficit down by controlling the growth of mandatory spending. It won't be painless. I think Mr. Perot put his finger on something there. It won't be painless, but we've got to get the job done. But not by raising taxes. Mr. and Mrs. America, when you hear him say we're going to tax only the rich, watch your wallet, because his figures don't add up, and he's going to sock it right to the middle class taxpayer and lower if he's going to pay for all the spending programs he's proposed. So we have a big difference on this trickle-down theory. I do not want any more trickle-down Government. It's gotten too big. I want to do something about that. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Perot, what do you think of the Governor's approach, what he just laid out? Mr. Perot. Well, the basic problem with it is it doesn't balance the budget. If you forecast it out, you still will have a significant deficit under each of their plans, as I understand them. Our challenge is to stop the financial bleeding. If you take a patient into a hospital that's bleeding arterially, step one is to stop the bleeding. And we are bleeding arterially. There's only one way out of this, and that is to stop the deterioration of our job base, to have a growing, expanding job base to give us the tax base. See, balancing the budget is not nearly as difficult as paying off the $4 trillion debt and leaving our children the American dream intact. We have spent their money. We have got to pay it back. This is going to take fair-shared sacrifice. My plan balances the budget within 6 years. We didn't do it faster than that because we didn't want to disrupt the economy. We gave it off to a slow start and a fast finish to give the economy time to recover. But we faced it, and we did it. And we believe it's fair-shared sacrifice. The one thing I have done is lay it squarely on the table in front of the American people. You've had a number of occasions to see in detail what the plan is and at least you'll understand it. I think that's fundamental in our country that you know what you're getting into. Mr. Lehrer. Governor, the word "pain," one of the other leadership things that's put on you is that you don't speak of pain, that you speak of all things -- nobody's going to really have to suffer under your plan. You've heard what Mr. Perot has said. He said to do the things you want to do, you can't do it by just taking the money from the rich. That's what the President says as well. How do you respond to that? The numbers don't add up. Governor Clinton. I disagree with both of them. Let me just follow up here. I disagree with Mr. Perot that the answer is to put a 50-cent gas tax on the middle class and raise more taxes on the middle class and the working poor than on the wealthy. His own analysis says that unemployment will be slightly higher in 1995 under his plan than it is today. As far as what Mr. Bush says, he is the person who raised taxes on the middle class after saying he wouldn't. Just this year Mr. Bush vetoed a tax increase on the wealthy that gave middle class tax relief. He vetoed middle class tax relief this year. Furthermore, under this administration, spending has increased more than it has in the last 20 years, and he asked Congress to spend more money than it actually spent. Now, it's hard to outspend Congress, but he tried to for the last 3 years. So my view is the middle class is the -- they've been suffering, Jim. Now, should people pay more for Medicare if they can? Yes. Should they pay more for Social Security if they get more out of it than they've paid in and they're upper income people? Yes. But look what's happened to the middle class. Middle class Americans are working harder for less money than they were making 10 years ago, and they're paying higher taxes. The tax burden on them has not gone down; it has gone up. I don't think the answer is to slow the economy down more, drive unemployment up more, and undermine the health of the private sector. The answer is to invest and grow this economy. That's what works in other countries, and that's what will work here. Mr. Lehrer. As a practical matter, Mr. President, do you agree with the Governor when he says that the middle class -- the taxes on the middle class -- do your numbers agree that the taxes on the middle class have gone up during the last -- -- President Bush. I think everybody is paying too much taxes. He refers to one tax increase. Let me remind you it was a Democratic tax increase. I didn't want to do it, and I went along with it. I said I made a mistake. If I make a mistake, I admit it. That's quite different than some. But I think that's the American way. I think everyone is paying too much. But I think this idea that you can go out and -- then he hits me for vetoing a tax bill. Yes, I did, and the American taxpayer ought to be glad they have a President to stand up to a spending Congress. We remember what it was like when we had a spending President and a spending Congress and interest rates -- who remembers that -- they were 21.5 percent under Jimmy Carter, and inflation was 15. We don't want to go back to that. So yes, everybody's taxed too much, and I want to get the taxes down, but not by signing a tax bill that's going to raise taxes on people. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. President, when you said just then that you admit your mistakes, and you looked at Governor Clinton and said -- what mistake is it that you want him to admit to? President Bush. Well, the record in Arkansas. I mean, look at it. And that's what we're asking America to have? Now, look, he says Arkansas's a poor State. They are. But in almost every category, they're lagging. I'll give you an example. He talks about all the jobs he's created in 1 or 2 years. Over the last 10 years since he's been Governor, they're 30 percent behind. They're 30 percent of the national average. On pay for teachers, on all these categories, Arkansas is right near the very bottom. You haven't heard me mention this before, but we're getting close now, and I think it's about time I start putting things in perspective. I'm going to do that. It's not dirty campaigning, because he's been talking about my record for half a year here, 11 months here, and so we've got to do that. I've got to get it in perspective. What's his mistake? Admit it, that Arkansas is doing very, very badly against any standard: environment, support for police officers, whatever it is. Mr. Lehrer. Governor, is that true? Governor Clinton. Mr. Bush's Bureau of Labor Statistics says that Arkansas ranks first in the country in the growth of new jobs this year, first -- -- President Bush. This year. Governor Clinton. -- -- fourth in manufacturing jobs; fourth in the reduction of poverty; fourth in income increase. Over the last 10 years we've created manufacturing jobs much more rapidly than the national average. Over the last 5 years our income has grown more rapidly than the national average. We are second in tax burden, the second lowest tax burden in the country. We have the lowest per capita State and local spending in the country. We are low-spending, low tax burden. We've dramatically increased investment and our jobs are growing. I wish America had that kind of record, and I think most people looking at us tonight would like it if we had more jobs and a lower spending burden on the Government. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Perot, if you were sitting at home now and just heard this exchange about Arkansas, who would you believe? Mr. Perot. I grew up five blocks from Arkansas. [Laughter] Let's put it in perspective. It's a beautiful State. It's a fairly rural State. It has a population less than Chicago or Los Angeles, about the size of Dallas and Fort Worth combined. So I think probably we're making a mistake night after night after night to cast the Nation's future on a unit that small. Mr. Lehrer. Why is that a mistake? Mr. Perot. It's irrelevant. [Laughter] Mr. Lehrer. What he did as Governor of Arkansas -- -- Mr. Perot. No, no, no. But you can't -- I could say that I ran a small grocery store on the corner, therefore, I extrapolate that into the fact that I could run Wal-Mart. That's not true. I carefully picked an Arkansas company, you notice there, Governor. Mr. Lehrer. Governor? Governor Clinton. Mr. Perot, with all respect, I think it is highly relevant, and I think that a $4 billion budget in State and Federal funds is not all that small. I think the fact that I took a State that was one of the poorest States in the country and had been for 153 years and tried my best to modernize its economy and to make the kind of changes that have generated support from people like the presidents of Apple Computer and Hewlett-Packard and some of the biggest companies in this country, 24 retired generals and admirals, and hundreds of business executives are highly relevant. And you know, I'm frankly amazed that since you grew up five blocks from there you would think that what goes on in that State is irrelevant. I think it's been pretty impressive. Mr. Perot. It's not -- -- Governor Clinton. And the people who have jobs and educations and opportunities that didn't have them 10 years ago don't think it's irrelevant at all. They think it's highly relevant and wish the rest of the country -- -- President Bush. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'd like to get in on it. Governor Clinton. You think it's relevant. President Bush. Governor Clinton has to operate under a balanced budget amendment. He has to do it. That is the law. I'd like to see a balanced budget amendment for America, to protect the American taxpayers. Then that would discipline not only the executive branch but the spending Congress, the Congress that's been in control of one party, his party, for 38 years. We almost had it done. And that institution, the House of Representatives -- everyone's yelling "Clean House!" One of the reasons is we almost had it done, and the Speaker, very able, decent fellow, I might add, but he twisted the arms of some of the sponsors of that legislation and had them change their vote. What's relevant here is that tool, that discipline that he has to live by in Arkansas. And I'd like it for the American people. I want the line-item veto. I want a check-off so if the Congress can't do it, let people check off their income tax, 10 percent of it, to compel the Government to cut spending. If they can't do it, if the Congress can't do it, let them then have to do it across the board. That's what we call a sequester. That's the discipline we need. And I'm working for that to protect the American taxpayer against the big spenders. Leadership Mr. Lehrer. Mr. President, let's move to some of the leadership concerns that have been voiced about you. They relate to something you said in your closing statement in Richmond the other night about the President being the manager of crises, and that relates to an earlier criticism that you began to focus on the economy, on health care, on racial divisions in this country only after they became crises. Is that a fair criticism? President Bush. Jim, I don't think that's a fair shot. I hear it. I hear it echoed by political opponents, but I don't think it's fair. I think we've been fighting from day one to do something about the inner cities. I'm for enterprise zones. I have had it in every single proposal I've sent to the Congress. Now we hear a lot of talk, "Oh, well, we all want enterprise zones." Yet the House and the Senate can't send it down without loading it up with a lot of these Christmas tree ornaments they put on the legislation. I don't think in racial harmony that I'm a laggard on that. I've been speaking out since day one. We've gotten the Americans for Disabilities Act, which I think is one of the foremost pieces of civil rights legislation. And yes, it took me to veto two civil rights quota bills, because I don't believe in quotas, and I don't think the American people believe in quotas. I beat back the Congress on that, and then we passed a decent civil rights bill that offers guarantees against discrimination in employment, and that is good. I've spoken out over and over again against anti-Semitism and racism, and I think my record as a Member of Congress speaks for itself on that. What was the other part of it? Mr. Lehrer. Well, it's just that -- you've spoken to it, I mean, but the idea -- not so much in specifics -- -- President Bush. Yes. Mr. Lehrer. -- -- but that it has to be a crisis before it gets your attention. President Bush. I don't think that's true at all. I don't think that's true. But, you know, let others fire away on it. Mr. Lehrer. Do you think that's true, Mr. Perot? Mr. Perot. I'd like to just talk about issues, and so -- -- Mr. Lehrer. You don't think this is an issue? Mr. Perot. Well, no. But the point is that's a subjective thing. The subjective thing is when does President Bush react. It would be very difficult for me to answer that in any short period of time. Mr. Lehrer. Well, then, I'll phrase it differently then. He said the other night in his closing words in Richmond that one of the key things that he believes the American people should decide among the three of you, is who they want in charge if this country gets to a crisis. Now, that's what he said. And the rap on the President is that it's only crisis time that he focuses on some of these things. So my question to you -- we're going to talk about you in a minute. Mr. Perot. I thought you'd forgotten I was here. [Laughter] Mr. Lehrer. No, no, no. No, no. But my question to you is -- so, if you have nothing to say about it, fine. I'll go to Governor Clinton. But -- -- Mr. Perot. I will let the American people decide that. I would rather not critique the two candidates. Mr. Lehrer. All right. Governor, what do you think? Governor Clinton. The only thing I would say about that is I think that on the economy, Mr. Bush said for a long time there was no recession and then said it would be better to do nothing than to have a compromise effort with the Congress. He really didn't have a new economic program until over 1,300 days into his Presidency and not all of his health care initiative has been presented to the Congress even now. I think it's important to elect a President who is committed to getting this economy going again and who realizes we have to abandon trickle-down economics and put the American people first again and who will send programs to the Congress in the first 100 days to deal with the critical issues that America's crying out for leadership on: jobs, incomes, the health care crisis, the need to control the economy. Those things deserve to be dealt with from day one. I will deal with them from day one. They will be my first priority, not my election year concerns. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. President. President Bush. Well, I think you're overlooking that we have had major accomplishments in the first term. But if you're talking about protecting the taxpayer against his friends in the United States Congress, go back to what it was like when you had a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. You don't have to go back to Herbert Hoover. Go back to Jimmy Carter. Interest rates were 21 percent. Inflation was 15 percent. The "misery index," unemployment, inflation added together, it was invented by the Democrats, went right through the roof. We've cut it in half, and all you hear about is how bad things are. You know, you remember the question, "Are you better off?" Well, is a homebuyer better off who can refinance the home because interest rates are down? Is a senior citizen better off because inflation is not wiping out their family savings? I think they are. Is the guy out of work better off? Of course he's not. But he's not going to be better off if we grow the Government, if we invest, as Governor Clinton says, invest in more Government. You've got to free up the private sector. You've got to let small business have more incentives. For 3 months -- three quarters I've been fighting, three quarters, been fighting to get the Congress to pass some incentives for small business, capital gains, investment tax allowance, credit for first-time homebuyers, and it's blocked by the Congress. Then if a little of it comes my way, they load it up with Christmas trees and tax increases. And I have to stand up in favor of the taxpayer. Staying the Course Mr. Lehrer. We have to talk about Ross Perot now, or he'll get me, I'm sure. Mr. Perot, on this issue that I have raised at the very beginning and we've been talking about, which is leadership as President of the United States, the concerns -- my reading of it, at least -- my concerns about you, as expressed by folks in the polls and other places, it goes like this: You've got a problem with General Motors. You took over $750 million, and you left. You had a problem in the spring and summer about some personal hits that you took as a potential candidate for President of the United States, and you walked out. Does that say anything relevant to how you would function as President of the United States? Mr. Perot. I think the General Motors thing is very relevant. I did everything I could to get General Motors to face its problems in the mid-eighties while it was still financially strong. They just wouldn't do it. Everybody now knows the terrible price they're paying by waiting until it's obvious to the brain dead that they have problems. [Laughter] Now, hundreds, thousands of good, decent people, whole cities up here in this State are adversely impacted because they would not move in a timely way. Our Government is at that point now. The thing that I am in this race for is to tap the American people on the shoulder and to say to every single one of you: Fix it while we're still relatively strong. If you have a heart problem, you don't wait until the heart attack to address it. So the General Motors experience is relevant. At the point when I could not get them to address those problems, I had created so much stress in the board, who wanted just to keep the Lawrence Welk music going, that they asked to buy my remaining shares. I sold them my remaining shares. They went their way; I went my way, because it was obvious we had a complete disagreement about what should be done with the company. But let's take my life in perspective. Again and again on complex, difficult tasks, I have stayed the course. When I was asked by our Government to do the POW project, within a year the Vietnamese had sent people into Canada to make arrangements to have me and my family killed. And I had five small children. And my family and I decided we would stay the course, and we lived with that problem for 3 years. Then I got into the Texans' war on drugs program, and the big-time drug dealers got all upset. Then when I had two people imprisoned in Iran, I could have left them there. I could have rationalized it. We went over, we got them out, and we brought them back home. And since then, for years, I have lived with the burden of the Middle East, where it's eye-for-an-eye and tooth-for-a-tooth country, in terms of their unhappiness with the fact that I was successful in that effort. Again and again and again, in the middle of the night, 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, my Government has called me to take extraordinary steps for Americans in distress. And again and again and again, I have responded. And I didn't wilt, and I didn't quit. Now, what happened in July we've covered again and again and again. But I think in terms of the American people's concern about my commitment -- and I'm here tonight, folks. I've never quit supporting you as you put me on the ballot in the other 26 States. When you asked me to come back in, I came back in. And talk about not quitting, I'm spending my money on this campaign. The two parties are spending your money, taxpayer money. I've put my wallet on the table for you and your children. Over $60 million at least will go into this campaign to leave the American dream to you and your children, to get this country straightened out, because if anybody owes it to you, I do. I've lived the American dream. I'd like for your children to be able to live it, too. Mr. Lehrer. Governor, do you have a response to the staying the course question about Mr. Perot? Governor Clinton. I don't have any criticism of Mr. Perot. I think what I'd like to talk about a minute is, since you asked him the question, was the General Motors issue. I don't think there's any question that the automobile executives made some errors in the 1980's, but I also think we should look at how much productivity has increased lately, how much labor has done to increase productivity, and how much management has done. We're still losing a lot of auto jobs, in my judgment, because we don't have a national economic strategy that would build the industrial base of this country. Just today, I met with the presidents and the vice presidents of the Willow Run union near here. They both said they were Vietnam veterans supporting me because I had an economic program that put them back to work. We need an investment incentive to modernize plant and equipment. We've got to control the health care costs for those people. Otherwise we can't keep the manufacturing jobs here. We need a tough trade policy that is fair, that insists on open markets in return for open markets. We ought to have a strategy that will build the economic and industrial base. So I think Mr. Perot was right in questioning the management practices. But they didn't have much of a partner in Government here as compared with the policies the Germans and the Japanese followed. I believe we can do better. That's one of the things I want to change. I know that we can grow manufacturing jobs. We did it in my State, and we can do it nationally. CAFE Standards Mr. Lehrer. Mr. President, do you have a response? President Bush. To this? Mr. Lehrer. Yes. President Bush. Well, I wondered when Governor Clinton was talking to the autoworkers whether he talked about his and Senator Gore's favoring CAFE standards, those are fuel efficiency standards, of 40 miles per gallon. That would break the auto industry and throw a lot of people out of work. As regarding Mr. Perot, I take back something I said about him. I once said in a frivolous moment when he got out of the race, if you can't stand the heat, buy an air conditioning company. I take it back because I think he said he made a mistake. The thing I find is if I make a mistake, I admit it. I've never heard Governor Clinton make a mistake. But one mistake he's made is fuel efficiency standards at 40 to 45 miles per gallon will throw many autoworkers out of work, and you can't have it both ways. There's a pattern here of appealing to the autoworkers and then trying to appeal to the spotted owl crowd or the extremes in the environmental movement. You can't do it as President. You can't have a pattern of one side of the issue one day and another the next. So my argument is not with Ross Perot; it is more with Governor Clinton. Mr. Lehrer. Governor, what about that charge that you want it both ways on this issue? Governor Clinton. Let's just talk about the CAFE standards. Mr. Lehrer. All right. Governor Clinton. That's the fuel efficiency standards. They're now 27.5 miles per gallon per automobile fleet. I never said, and I defy you to find where I said -- I gave an extensive environment speech in April. I said that we ought to have a goal of raising the fuel efficiency standards to 40 miles a gallon. I think that should be a goal. I never said we should write it into law if there is evidence that that goal cannot be achieved. The National Science Foundation did a study which said it would be difficult for us to reach fuel efficiency standards in excess of 37 miles per gallon by the year 2000. I think we should try to raise the fuel efficiency. And let me say this: I think we ought to have incentives to do it. I think we ought to push to do it. That doesn't mean we have to write it into the law. Look, I am a job creator, not a job destroyer. It is the Bush administration that has had no new jobs in the private sector in the last 4 years. In my State we're leading the country in private sector job growth. But it is good for America to improve fuel efficiency. We also ought to convert more vehicles to compressed natural gas. That's another way to improve the environment. NAFTA Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Perot, based on your experience at General Motors, where do you come down on this? This has been thrown about, back and forth during this campaign from the very beginning about jobs and CAFE standards. Mr. Perot. Well, everybody's nibbling around the edges. Let's go to the center of the bull's eye to the core problem. Believe me, everybody on the factory floor all over this country knows it. You implement that NAFTA, the Mexican trade agreement, where they pay people $1 an hour, have no health care, no retirement, no pollution controls, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and you're going to hear a giant sucking sound of jobs being pulled out of this country right at a time when we need the tax base to pay the debt and pay down the interest on the debt and get our house back in order. We have got to proceed very carefully on that. See, there's a lot I don't understand. I do understand business. I do understand creating jobs. I do understand how to make things work. And I've got a long history of doing that. Now, if you want to go to the core problem that faces everybody in manufacturing in this country, it's that agreement that's about to be put into practice. But here, very simply, everybody says it will create jobs. Yes, it will create bubble jobs. Now, watch this. Listen very carefully to this: One-time surge while we build factories and ship machine tools and equipment down there. Then year after year for decades they will have jobs. And I finally thought I didn't understand it. I called all the experts, and they said, "Oh, it will be disruptive for 12 to 15 years." We haven't got 12 days, folks. We cannot lose those jobs. They were saying Mexican jobs will eventually come to $7.50 an hour and ours will eventually go down to $7.50 an hour. It makes you feel real good to hear that, right? Let's think it through, here. Let's be careful. I'm for free trade philosophically, but I have studied these trade agreements until the world has gone flat, and we don't have good trade agreements across the world. I hope we'll have a chance to get into that tonight, because I can get right to the center of the bull's eye and tell you why we're losing whole industries in this country. Excuse me. Mr. Lehrer. Just for the record, though, Mr. Perot, I take it then for your answer you do not have a position on whether or not enforcing the CAFE standards will cost jobs in the auto industry. Mr. Perot. Oh, no. It will cost jobs. But that's not -- let me say this: I'd rather, if you gave me two bad choices -- -- Mr. Lehrer. Okay. Mr. Perot. I'd rather have some jobs left here than just see everything head south, see? Mr. Lehrer. So that means no -- [laughter] -- in other words, you agree with President Bush, is that right? Mr. Perot. No, I'm saying our principal need now is to stabilize the tax base, which is the job base, and create a growing, dynamic base. Now, please, folks, if you don't hear anything else I say, remember millions of people at work are our tax base. One quick point: If you confiscate the Forbes 400 wealth, take it all, you cannot balance the budget this year. Kind of gets your head straight about where the taxes year-in and year-out have got to come from. Millions and millions of people at work. Mr. Lehrer. I wanted -- yes, sir. President Bush. Well, I'm caught in the middle of NAFTA. Ross says, with great conviction, he opposes the North American free trade agreement. I am for the North American free trade agreement. My problem with Governor Clinton, once again, is that one time he's going to make up his mind, he will see some merit in it. But then he sees a lot of things wrong with it. And then the other day, he says he's for it; however, then we've got to pass other legislation. When you're President of the United States, you cannot have this pattern of saying, "Well, I'm for it, but I'm on the other side of it." And it's true on this, and it's true on CAFE. Look, if Ross were right and we get a free trade agreement with Mexico, why wouldn't they have gone down there now? You have a differential in wages right now. I just have an honest philosophical difference. I think free trade is going to expand our job opportunity. I think it is exports that have saved us when we're in a global slowdown, a connected, global slowdown, a recession in some countries. It's free trade, fair trade that needs to be our hallmark, and we need more free trade agreements, not fewer. Mr. Lehrer. Governor, a quick answer on trade, and I want to go on to something else. Governor Clinton. I'd like to respond to that. You know, Mr. Bush was very grateful when I was among the Democrats who said he ought to have the authority to negotiate an agreement with Mexico. Neither I nor anybody else, as far as I know, agreed to give him our proxy to say that whatever he did was fine for the workers of this country and for the interests of this country. I am the one who is in the middle on this. Mr. Perot says it's a bad deal. Mr. Bush says it's a hunky-dory deal. I say, on balance, it does more good than harm if we could get some protection for the environment so that the Mexicans have to follow their own environmental standards, their own labor law standards, and if we have a genuine commitment to reeducate and retrain the American workers who lose their jobs and reinvest in this economy. I have a realistic approach to trade. I want more trade. I know there are some good things in that agreement, but it can sure be made better. Let me just point out, just today in the Los Angeles Times, Clyde Prestowitz, who was one of President Reagan's leading trade advisers, and a lifelong conservative Republican, endorsed my candidacy because he knows that I'll have a free and fair trade policy, a hard-headed realistic policy, and not get caught up in rubber-stamping everything the Bush administration did. If I wanted to do that, why would I run for President, Jim? Anybody else can run the middle class down and run the economy in a ditch. I want to change it. President Bush. I think he made my case. On the one hand, it's a good deal, but on the other hand, I'd make it better. You can't do that as President. You can't do it on the war, where he says, "Well, I was with the minority, but I guess I would have voted with the majority." This is my point tonight: We're talking about 2 weeks from now you've got to decide who is going to be President. And there is this pattern that has plagued him in the primaries and now about trying to have it both ways on all these issues. You can't do that. If you make a mistake, say you made a mistake and go on about your business, trying to serve the American people. Right now we heard it. Ross is against it. I am for it. He says, "On the one hand, I'm for it, and on the other hand, I may be against it." Mr. Lehrer. Governor -- -- Governor Clinton. That's what's wrong with Mr. Bush. His whole deal is, you've got to be for it or against it, and you can't make it better. I believe we can be better. I think the American people are sick and tired of either-or solutions, people being pushed in the corner, polarized to extremes. I think they want somebody with common sense, who can do what's best for the American people. I'd be happy to discuss these other issues, but I can't believe he is accusing me of getting on both sides. He said trickle-down economics was voodoo economics. Now, he's its biggest practitioner. Let me just say -- -- President Bush. I've always said trickle-down Government is bad. Governor Clinton. I could run this string out a long time, but remember this, Jim: Those 209 Americans last Thursday night in Richmond told us they wanted us to stop talking about each other and start talking about Americans and their problems and their promises. I think we ought to get back to that. I'll be glad to answer any question you have, but this election ought to be about the American people. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Perot? Mr. Perot. Is there an equal time rule here tonight? President Bush. Yes. Mr. Perot. Or do you just keep lunging in at will? I thought we were going to have equal time, but maybe I just have to interrupt the other two. Is that the way it works this -- -- Mr. Lehrer. No. Mr. Perot, you're doing fine. Go ahead. Whatever you want to say, say it. Foreign Lobbyists Mr. Perot. Now that we've talked all around the problem about free trade, let's go again to the center of the bull's eye. Mr. Lehrer. Wait a minute. I was going to ask -- I thought you wanted to respond to what we were talking about. Mr. Perot. I do. I do. I just want to make -- these foreign lobbyists, this whole thing. Our country has sold out to foreign lobbyists. We don't have free trade. Both parties have foreign lobbyists on leave in key roles in their campaigns. If there's anything more unwise than that, I don't know what it is. Every debate, I bring this up, and nobody ever addresses it. I would like for them to look you in the eye and tell you why they have people representing foreign countries working on their campaigns. And you know, you've seen the list; I've seen the list. We won't go into the names. But no wonder they -- if I had those people around me all day every day telling me it was fair and free, I might believe it. But if I look at the facts as a businessman, it's so tilted. The first thing you ought to do is just say, "Guys, if you like these deals so well, we'll give you the deal you gave us." Now, Japanese couldn't unload the cars in this country if they had the same restrictions we had, and on and on and on and on and on. I suggest to you that the core problem -- one country spent $400 million lobbying in 1988 -- our country. And it goes on and on. And you look at a Who's Who in these campaigns around the two candidates. They're foreign lobbyists taking leaves. What do you think they're going to do when the campaign's over? Go back to work at 30,000 bucks a month representing some other country. I don't believe that's in the American people's interest. I don't have a one of them, and I haven't taken a penny of foreign money, and I never will. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. President, how do you respond to that? Mr. Perot has made that charge several times, the fact that you have people working in your campaign who are paid foreign lobbyists. President Bush. Most people that are lobbying are lobbying the Congress. I don't think there's anything wrong with an honest person who happens to represent an interest of another country for making his case. That's the American way. What you're assuming is that that makes the recipient of the lobbying corrupt or the lobbyists themselves corrupt. I don't agree with that. But if I found somebody that had a conflict of interest that would try to illegally do something as a foreign registered lobby, the laws cover this. I don't know why -- I've never understood quite why Mr. Perot was so upset about it, because one of the guys he used to have working for him, I believe, had foreign accounts. Could be wrong, but I think so. Mr. Perot. Soon as I found it out, he went out the door, too. President Bush. Well, I think you've got to look at the integrity and the honor of the people that are being lobbied and those that are lobbyists. The laws protect the American taxpayer in this regard. If the laws are violated so much -- but to suggest if somebody represents a foreign country on anything, that makes him corrupt or against the taxpayer, I don't agree with it. Mr. Perot. One quick relevant specific. We're getting ready to dismantle the airlines industry in our country, and none of you know it. I doubt, in all candor, if the President knows it. But this deal that we're doing with BAC and USAir and KLM and Northwest -- now, guess who is on the President's campaign big time? A guy from Northwest. This deal is terribly destructive to the U.S. airline industry. One of the largest industries in the world is the travel and tourist business. We won't be making airplanes in this country 10 years from now if we let deals like this go through. If the press has any interest tonight, I'll detail it to you. I won't take 10 minutes tonight; all these things take a few minutes. But that's happening as we sit here today. We hammerlock the American companies, American Airlines, Delta, the last few great we have, because we're trying to do this deal with these two European companies. Never forget, they've got Airbus over there, and it's a government-owned, privately owned consortium across Europe. They're dying to get the commercial airline business. Japan is trying to get the commercial airline business. I don't think there are any villains inside Government on this issue, but there sure are a lot of people who don't understand business. And maybe you need somebody up there who understands when you're getting your pocket picked. Mr. Lehrer. Governor, I'm sorry, but that concludes my time with -- -- Governor Clinton. Boy, I had a great response to that. Mr. Lehrer. All right. Go ahead, quickly. Just very briefly. Governor Clinton. I think Ross is right and that we do need some more restrictions on lobbyists. We ought to make them disclose the people they've given money to when they're testifying before congressional committees. We ought to close the lawyers' loophole; they ought to have to disclose when they're really lobbying. We ought to have a much longer period of time, about 5 years, between the time when people can leave executive branch offices and then go out and start lobbying for foreign interest. I agree with that. We've wrecked the airline industry already because there's all these leveraged buyouts and all these terrible things that have happened to the airline industry. We're going to have a hard time rebuilding it. But the real thing we've got to have is a competitive economic strategy. Look what's happening to McDonnell Douglas. Even Boeing is losing market share because we let the Europeans spend 25 to 40 billion dollars on Airbus without an appropriate competitive response. What I want America to do is to trade more, but to compete and win by investing in competitive ways. And we're in real trouble on that. Mr. Lehrer. I'm going to be in real trouble if I don't bring out -- it's about time -- -- President Bush. I promise it's less than 10 seconds. Mr. Lehrer. Okay. President Bush. I heard Governor Clinton congratulate us on one thing. First time he said something pleasant about this administration. Productivity in this country is up. It is way up. Productivity is up, and that's a good thing. There are many other good ones, but I was glad he acknowledged that. Mr. Perot. I've volunteered -- now, look, I'm just kind of a, you know, cur dog here. I was put on the ballot by the people, not special interest, so I have to stand up for myself. Now, Jim, let me net it out. On the second debate, I offered, since both sides want the enterprise zones but can't get together, I said I'll take a few days off and go to Washington and hold hands with you, and we'll get it done. I'll take a few days off, hold hands with you, and get this airline thing straightened out, because that's important to this country. That's kind of pathetic I have to do it, and nobody's called me yet to come up, I might mention -- [laughter] -- but if they do, if they do, it's easy to fix. If you all want the enterprise zones, why don't we pass the dang thing and do it? Right? Mr. Lehrer. All right. Now we're going to bring in three other journalists to ask questions. They are Susan Rook of CNN, Gene Gibbons of Reuters, and Helen Thomas of United Press International. You thought you'd never get in here, didn't you? President Bush. Uh-oh. Mr. Lehrer. Okay, we are going to continue on the subject of leadership, and the first question goes to Governor Clinton for a 2-minute answer. It will be asked by Helen Thomas. Helen? The Draft Issue Helen Thomas. Governor Clinton, your credibility has come into question because of your different responses on the Vietnam draft. If you had to do it over again, would you put on the Nation's uniform? And, if elected, could you, in good conscience, send someone to war? Governor Clinton. If I had to do it over again, I might answer the questions a little better. You know, I had been in public life a long time and no one had ever questioned my role, and so I was asked a lot of questions about the things that happened a long time ago. I don't think I answered them as well as I could have. Going back 23 years, I don't know, Helen. I was opposed to the war. I couldn't help that. I felt very strongly about it, and I didn't want to go at the time. It's easy to say in retrospect I would have done something differently. President Lincoln opposed the war, and there were people who said maybe he shouldn't be President. But I think he made us a pretty good President in wartime. We've got a lot of other Presidents who didn't wear their country's uniform and had to order our young soldiers into battle, including President Wilson and President Roosevelt. So the answer is, I could do that. I wouldn't relish doing it, but I wouldn't shrink from it. I think that the President has to be prepared to use the power of the Nation when our vital interests are threatened, when our treaty commitments are at stake, when we know that something has to be done that is in the national interest. And that is a part of being President. Could I do it? Yes, I could. Mr. Lehrer. A reminder now, we're back on the St. Louis rules, which means that the Governor had his answer, and then each of you will have one minute to respond. Mr. President. President Bush. Well, I've expressed my heartfelt difference with Governor Clinton on organizing demonstrations while in a foreign land against your country when young ghetto kids have been drafted and are dying. My argument with him on -- the question was about the draft is that there is this same pattern. In New Hampshire, Senator Kerry said you ought to level, you ought to tell the truth about it. And April 17th, he said he'd bring out all the records on the draft. They have not been forthcoming. He got a deferment, or he didn't. He got a notice, or he didn't. I think it's this pattern that troubles me more than the draft. A lot of decent, honorable people felt as he did on the draft. But it is this pattern. And again, you might be able to make amendments all the time, Governor, but as President, you can't be on all these different sides, and you can't have this pattern of saying, well, I did this, or I didn't. Then the facts come out, and you change it. That's my big difference with him on the draft. It wasn't failing to serve. Mr. Lehrer. Your minute is up, sir. Mr. Perot, one minute. Mr. Perot. I've spent my whole adult life very close to the military; feel very strongly about the people who go into battle for our country; appreciate their idealism, their sacrifices; appreciate the sacrifices their families make. That's been displayed again and again in a very tangible way. I look on this as history. I don't look on it, personally, as relevant. I consider it really a waste of time tonight when you consider the issues that face our country right now. Mr. Lehrer. All right. The next question goes to President Bush, and Gene Gibbons will ask it. 1990 Budget Agreement Gene Gibbons. Mr. President, you keep saying that you made a mistake in agreeing to a tax increase to get the 1990 budget deal with Congress. But if you hadn't gotten that deal you would have either had to get repeal of the Gramm-Rudman deficit control act or cut defense spending drastically at a time when the country was building up for the Gulf war and decimate domestic discretionary spending, including such things as air traffic control. If you had it to do all over again, sir, which of those alternatives would you choose? President Bush. I wouldn't have taken any of the alternatives. I believe I made a mistake. I did it for the very reasons you say. There was one good thing that came out of that budget agreement, and that is we put a cap on discretionary spending. One-third of the President's budget is at the President's discretion, or really, the Congress', since they appropriate every dime and tell the President how to spend every dime. We've put a cap on the growth of all that spending, and that's good. And that's helped. But I was wrong because I thought the tax compromise, going along with one Democratic tax increase, would help the economy. I see no evidence that it has done it. So what would I have done, what should I have done? I should have held out for a better deal that would have protected the taxpayer and not ended up doing what we had to do or what I thought at the time would help. So I made a mistake. You know, the difference, I think, is that I knew at the time I was going to take a lot of political flak. I knew we'd have somebody out there yelling, "Read my lips." And I did it because I thought it was right. And I made a mistake. That's quite different than taking a position where you know it's best for you. That wasn't best for me, and I knew it in the very beginning. I thought it would be better for the country than it was. So there we are. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Perot, one minute. Mr. Perot. The 101 in leadership is be accountable for what you do. Let's go back to the tax and budget summit briefly. Nobody ever told the American people that we increased spending $1.83 for every dollar of taxes raised. That's absolutely unconscionable. Both parties carry a huge blame for that on their shoulders. This was not a way to pay on the deficit. This was a trick on the American people. That's not leadership. Let's go back in terms of accepting responsibilities for your actions. To create Saddam Hussein over a 10-year period, using billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money, step up to the plate and say it was a mistake. To create Noriega using taxpayer money, step up to the plate and say it was a mistake. If you can't get your act together to pick him up one day when a Panamanian major has kidnaped him, a special forces team is 400 yards away and it's a stroll across the park to get him, and if you can't get your act together, at least pick up the Panamanian major who they then killed, step up to the plate and admit it was a mistake. That's leadership, folks. Now, leaders will always make mistakes. And I'm not aiming at any one person here. I'm aiming at our Government. Nobody takes responsibility for anything. We've got to change that. Mr. Lehrer. I'll take responsibility for saying your time is up. Mr. Perot. I'm watching the light. Mr. Lehrer. All right. Governor Clinton, one minute, sir. Governor Clinton. The mistake that was made was making the "read my lips" promise in the first place just to get elected, knowing what the size of the deficit was, knowing there was no plan to control health care costs, and knowing that we did not have a strategy to get real economic growth back into this economy. The choices were not good then. I think at the time the mistake that was made was signing off on the deal late on Saturday night in the middle of the night. That's just what the President did when he vetoed the family leave act. I think what he should have done is gone before the American people on the front end and said, "Listen, I made a commitment, and it was wrong. I made a mistake because I couldn't have foreseen these circumstances. And this is the best deal we can work out at the time." He said it was in the public interest at the time, and most everybody who was involved in it, I guess, thought it was. The real mistake was the "read my lips" promise in the first place. You just can't promise something like that just to get elected if you know there's a good chance that circumstances may overtake you. Mr. Lehrer. All right, Mr. Perot, the question is for you. You have a 2-minute answer, and it will be asked by Susan Rook. Leadership Susan Rook. Mr. Perot, you've talked about going to Washington to do what the people who run this country want you to do. But it is the President's duty to lead and often lead alone. How can you lead if you are forever seeking consensus before you act? Mr. Perot. Let's talk about two different subjects. In order to lead, you first have to use the White House as a bully pulpit and lead. Then you have to develop consensus, or you can't get anything done. That's where we are now. We can't get anything done. How do you get anything done when you've got all of these political action committees, all of these thousands of registered lobbyists, 40,000 registered lobbyists, 23,000 special interest groups, and the list goes on and on and on, and the average citizen out here just working hard every day. You've got to go to the people. I just love the fact that everybody, particularly in the media, goes bonkers over the town hall. I guess it's because you will lose your right to tell them what to think. [Laughter] The point is, they'll get to decide what to think. President Bush. Hey, you've got something there. Mr. Perot. I love the fact that people will listen to a guy with a bad accent and a poor presentation manner talking about flip charts for 30 minutes, because they want the details. See, all the folks up there at the top said, people, "The attention span of the American people is no more than 5 minutes. They won't watch it." They're thirsty for it. You want to have a new program in this country? If you get grassroots America excited about it and if they tap Congress on the shoulder and say, "Do it, Charlie," it will happen. That's a whole lot different from these fellows running up and down the halls whispering in their ears now and promising campaign funds for the next election if they do it. Now, I think that's going back to where we started. That's having a Government from the people. I think that's the essence of leadership, rather than cutting deals in dark rooms in Washington. Mr. Lehrer. Governor Clinton, one minute. Governor Clinton. Well, I believe in the town hall meetings. They started with my campaign in New Hampshire. I think Ross Perot has done a good job in having them. And I, as you know, pushed for the debate to include 209 American citizens who were part of it in Richmond a few days ago. I've done a lot of them, and I'll continue to do them as President. But I'd also like to point out that I haven't been part of what we're criticizing in Washington tonight. Of the three of us, I have balanced a government budget 12 times. I have offered and passed campaign finance reform; offered, pushed for, and passed in public referendum lobbyist restrictions; done the kinds of things you have to do to get legislators together, not only to establish consensus but to challenge them to change. In 12 years as Governor, I guess I've taken on every interest group there was in my State at one time or another to fight for change. It can be done. That's why I've tried to be so specific in this campaign: to have a mandate, if elected, so that Congress will know what the American people have voted for. Mr. Lehrer. President Bush, one minute. President Bush. I would like the record to show the panelists that Ross Perot took the first shot at the press. My favorite bumper sticker, though, is "Annoy the Media. Reelect President Bush." [Laughter] I just had to work that in. Sorry, Helen. I'm going to pay for this later on. Look, you have to build a consensus, but in some things -- Ross mentioned Saddam Hussein. Yes, we tried, and yes, we failed to bring him into the family of nations. He had the fourth largest army. But then when he moved against Kuwait I said, this will not stand. And it's hard to build a consensus. We went to the U.N. We made historic resolutions up there. The whole world was united. Our Congress was dragging its feet. Governor Clinton said, "Well, I might have been with the minority, let sanctions work. But I guess I would have voted with the majority." A President can't do that. Sometimes he has to act. In this case, I'm glad we did, because if we'd have let sanctions work and had tried to build a consensus on that, Saddam Hussein today would be in Saudi Arabia controlling the world's oil supply, and he would be there maybe with a nuclear weapon. We busted the fourth largest army, and we did it through leadership. Mr. Lehrer. All right, we're going to go on to another subject now, and the subject is priorities. And the first question goes to you, President Bush, and Susan will ask it. Women Advisers Ms. Rook. President Bush, gentlemen, I acknowledge that all of you have women and ethnic minorities working for you and working with you. But when we look at the circle of the key people closest to you, your inner circle of advisers, we see white men only. Why, and when will that change? President Bush. You don't see Margaret Tutwiler sitting in there with me today? Ms. Rook. The key people, President Bush. President Bush. What? Ms. Rook. The key people, the people beyond the glass ceiling. President Bush. I happen to think she's a key person. I think our Cabinet members are key people. I think the woman that works with me, Rose Zamaria, is about as tough as a boot out there and makes some discipline and protects the taxpayer. Look at our Cabinet. You talk about somebody strong, look at Carla Hills. Look at Lynn Martin, who's fighting against this glass ceiling and doing a first-class job on it. Look at our Surgeon General, Dr. Novello. You can look all around and you'll see first-class, strong women. Jim Baker's a man. Yes, I plead guilty to that. [Laughter] But look who's around with him there. I mean, this is a little defensive on your part, Susan, to be honest with you. We've got a very good record appointing women to high positions and positions of trust. And I'm not defensive at all about it. What we've got to do is keep working, as the Labor Department is doing a first-class job on, to break down discrimination, to break down the glass ceiling. I am not apologetic at all about our record with women. You think about women in Government. I think about women in business. Why not try to help them with my small business program to build some incentives into the system? I think we're making progress here. You've got a lot of women running for office. As I said the other night, I hope a lot of them lose, because they're liberal Democrats, and we don't need more of them in the Senate or more of them in the House. But nevertheless, they're out there. And we've got some very good Republican women running. So we're making dramatic progress. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Perot, one minute. Mr. Perot. Well, I've come from the computer business, and everybody knows women are more talented than the men. So we have a long history of having a lot of talented women. One of our first officers was a woman, a chief financial officer. She was a director. And it was so far back, it was considered so odd. And even though we were a tiny little company at the time, it made all the national magazines. But in terms of being influenced by women and being a minority, there they are right out there, my wife and my four beautiful daughters. And I just have one son. So he and I are surrounded by women telling us what to do all the time. [Laughter] Iraq For the rest of my minute, I want to make a very brief comment here in terms of Saddam Hussein. We told him that we wouldn't get involved with this border dispute, and we've never revealed those papers that were given to Ambassador Glaspie on July 25. I suggest, in the sense of taking responsibility for your actions, we lay those papers on the table. They're not the secrets to the nuclear bomb. Secondly, we got upset when he took the whole thing, but to the ordinary American out there who doesn't know where the oilfields are in Kuwait, they're near the border. We told him he could take the northern part of Kuwait, and when he took the whole thing, we went nuts. And if we didn't tell him that, why won't we even let the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee see the written instructions for Ambassador Glaspie? President Bush. I'd like to reply on that. That gets to the national honor. We did not say to Saddam Hussein, Ross, "You can take the northern part of Kuwait." That is absolutely absurd. Glaspie has testified -- -- Mr. Perot. Where are the papers? President Bush. -- -- and Glaspie's papers have been presented to the United States Senate. So please -- -- Mr. Perot. If you have time, go through NEXIS and LEXIS, pull all the old news articles. Look at what Ambassador Glaspie said all through the fall and what have you, and then look at what she and Kelly and all the others in State said at the end when they were trying to clean it up. And talk to any head of any of those key committees in the Senate. They will not let them see the written instructions given to Ambassador Glaspie. And I suggest that in a free society owned by the people, the American people ought to know what we told Ambassador Glaspie to tell Saddam Hussein. Because we spent a lot of money and risked lives and lost lives in that effort, and did not accomplish most of our objectives. We got Kuwait back to the Amir; but he still got his nuclear, his chemical, his bacteriological, and he's still over there, right? I'd like to see those written instructions. Sorry. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. President, when you -- just make sure that everybody knows what's going on here. When you responded directly to Mr. Perot then -- -- President Bush. Yes. Mr. Lehrer. -- -- you violated the rule, your rules. Now, I'm willing -- -- President Bush. I apologize. When I make a mistake, I say -- [laughter]. Mr. Lehrer. No, no, no. I just want to make sure that everybody understands. If you all want to change the rules, we can do it. President Bush. No, I don't. I apologize for it. But that one got right to the national honor. Mr. Lehrer. All right. Okay. President Bush. And I'm sorry. Mr. Lehrer. Okay. But Governor Clinton, you have a minute. Women Advisers Governor Clinton. Susan, I don't agree that there are no women and minorities in important positions in my campaign. There are many. But I think even more relevant is my record at home. For most of my time as Governor, a woman was my chief of staff, an African American was my chief cabinet officer, an African American was my chief economic development officer. It was interesting, there was a story either today or yesterday in the Washington Post about my economic programs. My chief budget officer and my chief economic officer were both African Americans, even though the Post didn't mention that, which I think is a sign of progress. The National Women's Political Caucus gave me an award, one of their good guy awards, for my involvement of women in high levels of government. I've appointed more minorities to positions of high levels in government than all the Governors in the history of my State combined before me. So that's what I'll do as President. I don't think we've got a person to waste. I think I owe the American people a White House staff, a Cabinet, and appointments that look like America, but that meet high standards of excellence, and that's what I'll do. Mr. Lehrer. All right. The next question goes to you, Mr. Perot, for 2 minutes. It's a 2-minute question, and Helen will ask it. Helen? Investigations Ms. Thomas. Mr. Perot, what proof do you have that Saddam Hussein was told that he could have -- do you have any actual proof, or are you asking for the papers? And also, I really came in with another question. What is this penchant you have to investigate everyone? Are those accusations correct, investigating your staff, investigating the leaders of the grassroots movement, investigating associates of your family? Mr. Perot. No, they're not correct. And if you look at my life for the first -- until I got involved in this effort, I was one person. And then after the Republican dirty tricks group got through with me, I'm another person, which I consider an absolutely sick operation. And all of you in the press know exactly what I'm talking about. They investigated every single one of my children. They investigated my wife. They interviewed all my children's friends from childhood on. They went to extraordinary, sick lengths. And I just found it amusing that they would take two or three cases where I was involved in lawsuits and would engage an investigator, the lawyers would engage an investigator, which is common. And the only difference between me and any other businessman that has the range of businesses I have is I haven't had that many lawsuits. So that's just another one of those little fruit-loopy things they make up to try to, instead of facing issues, to try to redefine a person that's running against them. This goes on night and day. I will do everything I can, if I get up there, to make dirty tricks a thing of the past. One of the two groups has raised it to an art form. It's a sick art form. Iraq Now, let's go back to Saddam Hussein. We gave Ambassador Glaspie written instructions. That's a fact. We've never let the Congress and these Foreign Relations -- Senate Intelligence Committee see them. That's a fact. Ambassador Glaspie did a lot of talking, right after July the 25th, and that's a fact, and it saw the newspapers. You pull all of it at once and read it, and I did, and it's pretty clear what she and Kelly and the other key guys around that thing thought they were doing. Then, at the end of the war when they had to go testify about it, their stories are a total disconnect from what they said in August, September, and October. So I say, this is very simple: Saddam Hussein released a tape, as you know, claiming it was a transcript of their meeting, where she said, "We will not become involved in your border dispute," and in effect, "You can take the northern part of the country." We later said, "No, that's not true." I said, well, this is simple. What were her written instructions? We guard those like the secrets to the atomic bomb, literally. Now, I say: Whose country is this? This is ours. Who will get hurt if we lay those papers on the table? The worst thing is, again, it's a mistake. Nobody did any of this with evil intent. I just object to the fact that we cover up and hide things, whether it's Iran-contra, Iraqgate, or you name it. It's a steady stream. Mr. Lehrer. Governor Clinton, you have one minute. Governor Clinton. Let's take Mr. Bush for the moment at his word. I mean, he's right, we don't have any evidence, at least, that our Government did tell Saddam Hussein he could have that part of Kuwait. And let's give him the credit he deserves for organizing Operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield. It was a remarkable event. But let's look at where, I think, the real mistake was made. In 1988, when the war between Iraq and Iran ended, we knew Saddam Hussein was a tyrant. We had dealt with him because he was against Iran. The enemy of my enemy maybe is my friend. All right, the war is over. We know he's dropping mustard gas on his own people. We know he's threatened to incinerate half of Israel. Several Government Departments, several, had information that he was converting our aid to military purposes and trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. But in late '89, the President signed a secret policy saying we were going to continue to try to improve relations with him, and we sent him some sort of communication on the eve of his invasion of Kuwait that we still wanted better relations. So I think what was wrong -- I give credit where credit is due, but the responsibility was in coddling Saddam Hussein when there was no reason to do it and when people at high levels in our Government knew he was trying to do things that were outrageous. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. President, you have a moment -- a minute, I'm sorry. President Bush. It's awful easy when you're dealing with 90/90 hindsight. We did try to bring Saddam Hussein into the family of nations. He did have the fourth largest army. All our Arab allies out there thought we ought to do just exactly that. When he crossed the line, I stood up and looked into the camera and I said, "This aggression will not stand." We formed a historic coalition, and we brought him down. We destroyed the fourth largest army, and the battlefield was searched, and there wasn't one single iota of evidence that any U.S. weapons were on that battlefield. The nuclear capability has been searched by the United Nations, and there hasn't been one single scintilla of evidence that there's any U.S. technology involved in it. What you're seeing on all this Iraqgate is a bunch of people who were wrong on the war trying to cover their necks here and try to do a little revisionism. I cannot let that stand, because it isn't true. Yes, we had grain credits for Iraq, and there isn't any evidence that those grain credits were diverted into weaponry, none, none whatsoever. And so I just have to say it's fine. You can't say there, Governor Clinton, and say, "Well, I think I have supported the minority" -- let sanctions work or wish that it would go away -- "but I would have voted with the majority." Come on, that's not leadership. Mr. Lehrer. The next question goes to Governor Clinton, and Gene Gibbons will ask it. Gene? Banking Situation Mr. Gibbons. Governor, an important aspect of leadership is, of course, anticipating problems. During the 1988 campaign, there was little or no mention of the savings and loan crisis that has cost the American people billions and billions of dollars. Now there are rumblings that a commercial bank crisis is on the horizon. Is there such a problem, sir? If so, how bad is it, and what will it cost to clean it up? Governor Clinton. Gene, there is a problem in the sense that there are some problem banks. And on December 19th, new regulations will go into effect which will, in effect, give the Government the responsibility to close some banks that are not technically insolvent but that are plainly in trouble. On the other hand, I don't think that we have any reason to believe that the dimensions of this crisis are anywhere near as great as the savings and loan crisis. The mistake that both parties made in Washington with the S&L business was deregulating them without proper capital requirements, proper oversight and regulation, proper training of the executives. Many people predicted what happened, and it was a disaster. The banking system in this country is fundamentally sound, with some weak banks. I think that our goal ought to be, first of all, not to politicize it, not to frighten people; secondly, to say that we have to enforce the law in two ways. We don't want to overreact as the Federal regulators have, in my judgment, on good banks so that they've created credit crunches that have made our recession worse in the last couple of years, but we do want to act prudently with the banks that are in trouble. We also want to say that, insofar as is humanly possible, the banking industry itself should pay for the cost of any bank failures, the taxpayers should not, and that will be my policy. I believe we have a good, balanced approach. We can get the good banks loaning money again in the credit crunch, have proper regulation on the ones that are in trouble, and not > Transfer interrupted! em, but I don't see it as the kind of terrible, terrible problem that the S&L problem was. Mr. Lehrer. President Bush, one minute. President Bush. Well, I don't believe it would be appropriate for a President to suggest that the banking system is not sound; it is sound. There are some problem banks out there. But what we need is financial reform. We need some real financial reform, banking reform legislation. I have proposed that, and when I am reelected I believe one of the first things ought to be to press a new Congress, not beholden to the old ways, to pass financial reform legislation that modernizes the banking system, doesn't put a lot of inhibitions on it, and protects the depositors through keeping the FDIC sound. I just was watching some of the proceedings of the American Bankers Association, and I think the general feeling is most of the banks are sound. Certainly there's no comparison here between what happened to the S&L's and where the banks stand right now, in my view. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Perot, one minute. Mr. Perot. Well, nobody's gotten into the real issue yet on the savings and loan. Again, nobody's got a business background, I guess. The whole problem came up in 1984. The President of the United States was told officially it was a $20 billion problem. These crooks -- now, Willie Sutton would have gone to own a savings and loan rather than rob banks. He robbed banks because that's where the money is; owning a savings and loan is where the money was. Now, in 1984 they were told. I believe the Vice President was in charge of deregulation. Nobody touched that tar baby until the day after election in 1988, because they were flooding both parties with crooked PAC money. And it was, in many cases, stolen PAC money. Now, you and I never got a ride on a lot of these yachts and fancy things it bought, but you and I are paying for it. And they buried it until right after the election. Now, if you believe the Washington Post and you believe this extensive study that's been done, and I'm reading it, right after election day this year they're going to hit us with 100 banks. It'll be a $100 billion problem. Now, if that's true, just tell me now. I'm grown up. I can deal with it. I'll pay my share. But just tell me now. Don't bury it until after the election twice. I say that to both political parties. The people deserve that, since we have to pick up the tab. You've got the PAC money. We'll pay the tab. Just tell us. Mr. Lehrer. All right, Mr. Perot. The next question, we're going into a new round here on a category just called "differences." And the question goes to you, Mr. Perot, and Gene will ask it. Gene? Government Reform Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Perot, aside from the deficit, what Government policy or policies do you really want to do something about? What really sticks in your craw about conditions in this country, beside the deficit, that you would want to fix as President? Mr. Perot. The debt and the deficit. Well, if you watched my television show the other night, you saw it. If you watch it Thursday, Friday, Saturday this week, you'll get more. So, a shameless plug there, Mr. President. But in a nutshell, we've got to reform our Government or we won't get anything done. We have a Government that doesn't work. All these specific examples I'm giving tonight, if you had a business like that, they'd be leading you away and boarding up the doors. We have a Government that doesn't work. It's supposed to come from the people. It comes at the people. The people need to take their Government back. You've got to reform Congress. They've got to be servants to the people again. You've got to reform the White House. We've got to turn this thing around. It's a long list of specific items, and I've covered it again and again in print and on television. But very specifically, the key thing is to turn the Government back to the people and take it away from the special interests and have people go to Washington to serve. Who can give themselves a 23-percent pay raise anywhere in the world except Congress? Who would have 1,200 airplanes worth $2 billion a year just to fly around in? I don't have a free reserved parking place at National Airport. Why should my servants? I don't have an indoor gymnasium and an indoor tennis court, an indoor every other thing they can think of. I don't have a place where I can go make free TV to send to my constituents to try to brainwash them to elect me the next time. And I'm paying for all that for those guys. I'm going to be running an ad pretty soon that shows -- they promised us they were going to hold the line on spending, a tax and budget summit -- and I'm going to show how much they've increased this little stuff they do for themselves. It is Silly Putty, folks, and the American people have had enough of it. Step one, if I get up there, we're going to clean that up. You say, how can I get Congress to do that? I'll have millions of people shoulder-to-shoulder with me, and we will see it done warp speed, because it's wrong. We've turned the country upside down. Mr. Lehrer. Governor Clinton, you have one minute. Governor. Governor Clinton. I would just point out on the point Mr. Perot made, I agree that we need to cut spending in Congress. I've called for a 25-percent reduction in congressional staffs and expenditures. But the White House staff increased its expenditures by considerably more than Congress has in the last 4 years under the Bush administration, and Congress has actually spent $1 billion less than President Bush asked them to spend. Now, when you outspend Congress, you're really swinging. That, however, is not my only passion. The real problem in this country is that most people are working hard and falling further behind. My passion is to pass a jobs program to get incomes up with an investment incentive program to grow jobs in the private sector, to waste less public money and invest more, to control health care costs and provide for affordable health care for all Americans, and to make sure we've got the best trained work force in the world. That is my passion. We've got to get this country growing again and this economy strong again, or we can't bring down the deficit. Economic growth is the key to the future of this country. Mr. Lehrer. President Bush, one minute. President Bush. On Government reform? Mr. Lehrer. Sir? President Bush. Government reform? Mr. Lehrer. Yes. Well, to respond to the subject that Mr. Perot mentioned. President Bush. How about this for a Government reform policy? Reduce the White House staff by a third after or at the same time the Congress does the same thing for their staff; term limits for Members of the United States Congress. Give the Government back to the people. Let's do it that way. The President has term limits. Let's limit some of these guys sitting out here tonight. Term limits, and then how about a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution? Forty-three States, more than that, States have it, I believe. Let's try that. You want to do something about all this extra spending that concerns Mr. Perot and me? Okay, how about a line-item veto? Forty-three Governors have that. Give it to the President. If the Congress isn't big enough to do it, let the President have a shot at this excess spending. A line-item veto, that means you can take a line and cut out some of the pork out of a meaningful bill. Governor Clinton keeps hitting me on vetoing legislation. Well, that's the only protection the taxpayer has against some of these reckless pork programs up there. I'd rather be able to just line it right out of there and get on about passing some good stuff, but leave out the garbage. Line-item veto, there's a good reform program for you. Mr. Lehrer. The next question goes to Governor Clinton. You have two minutes, Governor, and Susan will ask it. Taxes Ms. Rook. Governor Clinton, you said that you will raise taxes on the rich, people with incomes of $200,000 a year or higher. A lot of people are saying that you will have to go lower than that, much lower. Will you make a pledge tonight below which -- an income level that you will not go below? I am looking for numbers, sir, not just a concept. Governor Clinton. You can read my plan. My plan says that we want to raise marginal incomes on family incomes above $200,000 from 31 to 36 percent; that we want to ask foreign corporations simply to pay the same percentage of taxes on their income that American corporations pay in America; that we want to use that money to provide over $100 billion in tax cuts for investment in new plant and equipment, for small business, for new technologies, and for middle class tax relief. Now, I can tell you this: I will not raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs. If the money does not come in there to pay for these programs, we will cut other Government spending, or we will slow down the phase-in to the programs. I am not going to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for these programs. Now, furthermore, I am not going to tell you "Read my lips" on anything because I cannot foresee what emergencies might develop in this country. And the President said never, never, never would he raise taxes, in New Jersey. Within a day, Marlin Fitzwater, his spokesman, said, now, that's not a promise. So I think even he has learned that you can't say "Read my lips" because you can't know what emergencies might come up. But I can tell you this: I'm not going to raise taxes on middle class Americans to pay for the programs I've recommended. Read my plan. And you know how you can trust me about that? Because you know, in the first debate, Mr. Bush made some news. He had just said Jim Baker was going to be Secretary of State, but in the first debate he said no, now he's going to be responsible for domestic economic policy. Well, I'll tell you, I'll make some news in the third debate: The person responsible for domestic economic policy in my administration will be Bill Clinton. I'm going to make those decisions, and I won't raise taxes in the middle class to pay for my program. Mr. Lehrer. President Bush, you have one minute. President Bush. That's what worries me, that he's going to be responsible. He would do for the United States what he has done for Arkansas. He would do for the United States what he's done to Arkansas. We do not want to be the lowest of the low. We are not a nation in decline. We are a rising nation. My problem is, I heard what he said. He said, "I want to take it from the rich, raise $150 billion from the rich." To get it, to get $150 billion in new taxes, you've got to go down to the guy that's making $36,600. And if you want to pay for the rest of his plan, all the other spending programs, you're going to sock it to the working man. So when you hear "tax the rich," Mr. and Mrs. America, watch your wallet. Lock your wallet, because he's coming right after you just like Jimmy Carter did, and just like you're going to get -- you're going to end up with interest rates at 21 percent, and you're going to have inflation going through the roof. Yes, we're having tough times. But we do not need to go back to the failed policies of the past when you had a Democratic President and a spendthrift Democratic Congress. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Perot. Governor Clinton. You permitted Mr. Bush to break the rules, he said to defend the honor of the country. What about the honor of my State? We rank first in the country in job growth. We've got the lowest spending, State and local, in the country and the second lowest tax burden. The difference between Arkansas and the United States is that we're going in the right direction, and this country's going in the wrong direction. And I have to defend the honor of my State. Mr. Lehrer. We've got a wash, according to my calculations. We have a wash. And we'll go to Mr. Perot for one minute. In other words, the violation of the rule; that's what I meant. Mr. Perot. I'm the only one that's untarnished at this point. Mr. Lehrer. That's right, you're clean. [Laughter] Mr. Perot. I'm sure I'll do it before it's over. The key thing here, see, we all come up with images. Images don't fix anything. You know, I'm starting to understand it. You stay around this long enough, you think about -- if you talk about it in Washington, you think you did it. If you've been on television about it, you think you did it. [Laughter] What we need is people to stop talking and start doing. Now, our real problem here is they both have plans that will not work. The Wall Street Journal said your numbers don't add up. And you can take it out on charts; you look at all the studies that different groups have done; you go out 4, 5, 6 years: We're still drifting along with a huge deficit. So let's come back to harsh reality. Everybody said, "Gee, Perot, you're tough." I say, well, this is not as tough as World War II; and it's not as tough as the Revolution. It's fair-shared sacrifice to do the right thing for our country and for our children. And it will be fun if we all work together to do it. Mr. Lehrer. This is the last question, and it goes to President Bush for a 2-minute answer. And it will be asked by Helen. Presidential Campaign Ms. Thomas. Mr. President, why have you dropped so dramatically in the leadership polls, from the high eighties to the forties? And you have said you will do anything you have to do to get reelected. What can you do in 2 weeks to win reelection? President Bush. Well, I think the answer to why the drop, I think, has been the economy in the doldrums. Why I'll win is I think I have the best plan of the three of us up here to do something about it. Mine does not grow the Government. It does not have Government invest. It says we need to do better in terms of stimulating private business. We've got a big philosophical difference here tonight between one who thinks the Government can do all these things through tax and spend, and one who thinks it ought to go the other way. So I believe the answer is, I'm going to win it because I'm getting into focus my agenda for America's renewal, and also I think that Governor Clinton's had pretty much of a free ride on looking specifically at the Arkansas record. He keeps criticizing us, criticizing me; I'm the incumbent. Fine. But he's an incumbent. And we've got to look at all the facts. They're almost at the bottom on every single category. We can't do that to the American people. Then, Helen, I really believe where people are going to ask this question about trust -- because I do think there's a pattern by Governor Clinton of saying one thing to please one group and then trying to please another group. I think that pattern is a dangerous thing to suggest would work for the Oval Office. It doesn't work that way when you're President. Truman is right: The buck stops there. You have to make decisions, even when it's against your own interest. I've done that. It's against my political interests to say go ahead and go along with the tax increase. But I did what I thought was right at the time. So I think people are going to be looking for trust and experience. Then, I mentioned it the other night, I think if there's a crisis, people are going to say, "Well, George Bush has taken us through some tough crises, and we trust him to do that." So I'll make the appeal on a wide array of issues. Also I've got a philosophical difference -- I've got to watch the clock here -- I don't think we're a declining nation. The whole world has had economic problems. We're doing better than a lot of the countries in the world. And we're going to lead the way out of this economic recession across this world and economic slowdown here at home. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Perot, you have one minute. President Bush. That's why I think I'll win. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Perot, you have -- sorry. Excuse me, sir. Mr. Perot, you have one minute. Mr. Perot. I'm the last one, right? Mr. Lehrer. No. Governor Clinton has a minute after you. Then we have the closing statements. Mr. Perot. One minute after you? Mr. Lehrer. Right. Mr. Perot. I'm totally focused on the fact that we may have bank failures, and nobody answered it. I'm totally focused on that fact that we are still evading the issue of the Glaspie papers. I'm totally focused on the fact that we still could have enterprise zones, according to both parties, but we don't. So I'm still focused on gridlock, I guess. I'm also focused on the fact that isn't it a paradox that we have the highest productivity in our work force in the industrialized world and at the same time have the largest trade deficit, and at the same time rank behind nine other nations in what we pay our most productive people in the world. We're losing whole industries overseas. Now, can't somebody agree with me that the Government is breaking business' legs with these trade agreements? They're breaking business' legs in a number of different ways. We have an adversarial relationship that's destroying jobs and sending them overseas, while we have the finest workers in the world. Keep in mind the factory worker has nothing to do with anything except putting it together on the factory floor. It's our obligation to make sure that we give him the finest products in the world to put together, and we don't break his legs in the process. Mr. Lehrer. Governor Clinton, one minute. Governor Clinton. I really can't believe Mr. Bush is still trying to make trust an issue after "read my lips" and "15 billion new jobs" and embracing what he called "voodoo economics" and embracing an export enhancing program for farmers he threatened to veto and going all around the country giving out money and programs that he once opposed. But the main thing is he still didn't get it, from what he said the other night to that fine woman on our program, the 209 people in Richmond. They don't want us talking about each other. They want us to talk about the problems of this country. I don't think he'll be reelected because trickle-down economics is a failure, and he's offering more of it. And what he's saying about my program is just not true. Look at the Republicans that have endorsed me, high-tech executives in northern California. Look at the 24 generals and admirals, retired, who have endorsed me, including the deputy commander of Desert Storm. Look at Sarah Brady, Jim Brady's wife, President Reagan's Press Secretary, who endorsed me because he knuckled under to the NRA and wouldn't fight for the Brady bill. We've got a broad-based coalition that goes beyond party, because I am going to change this country and make it better with the help of the American people. Mr. Lehrer. All right. That was the final question and answer, and we now go to the closing statements. Each candidate will have up to 2 minutes. The order was determined by a drawing. Governor Clinton, you are first. Governor. Closing Statements Governor Clinton. First I'd like to thank the Commission and my opponents for participating in these debates and making them possible. I think the real winners of the debates were the American people. I was especially moved in Richmond a few days ago when 209 of our fellow citizens got to ask us questions. They went a long way toward reclaiming this election for the American people and taking their country back. I want to say, since this is the last time I'll be on a platform with my opponents, that even though I disagree with Mr. Perot on how fast we can reduce the deficit and how much we can increase taxes on the middle class, I really respect what he's done in this campaign to bring the issue of deficit reduction to our attention. I'd like to say to Mr. Bush, even though I've got profound differences with him, I do honor his service to our country. I appreciate his efforts, and I wish him well. I just believe it's time to change. I offer a new approach. It's not trickle-down economics; it's been tried for 12 years, and it's failed. More people are working harder for less, 100,000 people a month losing their health insurance, unemployment going up, our economy slowing down. We can do better. And it's not tax-and-spend economics. It's invest and grow, put our people first, control health care costs and provide basic health care to all Americans, have an education system second to none, and revitalize the private economy. That is my commitment to you. It is a kind of change that can open up a whole new world of opportunities to America as we enter the last decade of this century and move toward the 21st century. I want a country where people who work hard and play by the rules are rewarded, not punished. I want a country where people are coming together across the lines of race and region and income. I know we can do better. It won't take miracles, and it won't happen overnight. But we can do much, much better if we have the courage to change. Thank you very much. Mr. Lehrer. President Bush, your closing statement, sir. President Bush. Three weeks from now -- two weeks from tomorrow, America goes to the polls. You're going to have to decide who you want to lead this country to economic recovery. On jobs, that's the number one priority, and I believe my program for stimulating investment, encouraging small business, brandnew approach to education, strengthening the American family, and yes, creating more exports is the way to go. I don't believe in trickle-down Government. I don't believe in larger taxes and larger Government spending. On foreign affairs, some think it's irrelevant. I believe it's not. We're living in an interconnected world. The whole world is having economic difficulties. The U.S. is doing better than a lot. But we've got to do even better. If a crisis comes up, I ask: Who has the judgment and the experience and, yes, the character to make the right decision? Lastly, the other night on character, Governor Clinton said it's not the character of the President but "the character of the Presidency." I couldn't disagree more. Horace Greeley said, "The only thing that endures is character." And I think it was Justice Black who talked about "Great nations, like great men, must keep their word." And so the question is: Who will safeguard this Nation? Who will safeguard our people and our children? I need your support. I ask for your vote. And may God bless the United States of America. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Perot, your closing statement, sir. Mr. Perot. To the millions of fine, decent people who did the unthinkable and took their country back in their own hands and put me on the ballot, let me pledge to you that tonight is just the beginning. These next 2 weeks we will be going full steam ahead to make sure that you get a voice and that you get your country back. This Thursday night on ABC from 8:30 to 9, Friday night on NBC from 8 to 8:30, and Saturday night on CBS from 8 to 8:30, we'll be down in the trenches, under the hood, working on fixing the old car to get it back on the road. [Laughter] Now, the question is: Can we win? Absolutely we can win, because it's your country. The question really is: Who do you want in to the White House? It's that simple. Now, you've got to stop letting these people tell you who to vote for. You've got to stop letting these folks in the press tell you you're throwing your vote away. You've got to start using your own head. Then the question is: Can we govern? I love that one. The "we" is you and me. You bet your hat we can govern, because we will be in there together, and we will figure out what to do. You won't tolerate gridlock. You won't tolerate endless meandering and wandering around. You won't tolerate nonperformance. And believe me, anybody who knows me understands I have a very low tolerance for nonperformance also. Together we can get anything done. The President mentioned that you need the right person in a crisis. Well, folks, we've got one. And that crisis is a financial crisis. Pretty simply, who's the best qualified person up here on the stage to create jobs? Make your decision and vote on November the 3d. I suggest you might consider somebody who's created jobs. Second, who's the best person to manage money? I suggest you pick a person who's successfully managed money. Who's the best person to get results and not talk? Look at the record; make your decision. Finally, who would you give your pension fund and your savings account to to manage? And the last one, who would you ask to be the trustee of your estate and take care of your children if something happened to you? Finally, to you students up there, God bless you. I'm doing this for you. I want you to have the American dream. And to the American people, to the American people, I'm doing this because I love you. That's it. Thank you very much. Mr. Lehrer. Thank you, Mr. Perot. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Governor Clinton, for being with us tonight and the previous debates. Thank you to the panel. The only thing that is left to be said is, from Michigan State University in East Lansing, I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night. Note: The debate began at 7 p.m. in Wharton Center for the Performing Arts at Michigan State University. During the debate, the following persons were referred to: Rose M. Zamaria, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of White House Operations; April C. Glaspie, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq; and John H. Kelly, former Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs. George Bush, Presidential Debate in East Lansing, Michigan Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/217088

October 15, 1992 Carole Simpson. Good evening, and welcome to the second of three Presidential debates between the major candidates for President of the United States. The candidates are the Republican nominee, President George Bush; the independent, Ross Perot; and Governor Bill Clinton, the Democratic nominee. My name is Carole Simpson, and I will be the moderator for tonight's 90-minute debate which is coming to you from the campus of the University of Richmond in Richmond, Virginia. Now, tonight's program is unlike any other Presidential debate in history. We're making history now, and it's pretty exciting. An independent polling firm has selected an audience of 209 uncommitted voters from this area. The candidates will be asked questions by these voters on a topic of their choosing, anything they want to ask about. My job as moderator is to, you know, take care of the questioning, ask questions myself if I think there needs to be continuity and balance, and sometimes I might ask the candidates to respond to what another candidate may have said. Now, the format has been agreed to by representatives of both the Republican and Democratic campaigns, and there is no subject matter that is restricted. Anything goes. We can ask anything. After the debate the candidates will have an opportunity to make a closing statement. So, President Bush, I think you said it earlier, let's get it on. President Bush. Let's go. Ms. Simpson. And I think the first question is over here. Foreign Trade and Domestic Jobs Q. I'd like to direct my question to Mr. Perot. What will you do as President to open foreign markets to fair competition from American business and to stop unfair competition here at home from foreign countries so that we can bring jobs back to the United States? Mr. Perot. That's right at the top of my agenda. We've shipped millions of jobs overseas, and we have a strange situation because we have a process in Washington where after you've served for a while, you cash in, become a foreign lobbyist, make $30,000 a month, then take a leave, work on Presidential campaigns, make sure you got good contacts, and then go back out. Now, if you just want to get down to brass tacks, first thing you ought to do is get all these folks that have got these one-way trade agreements that we've negotiated over the years and say, "Fellas, we'll take the same deal we gave you." They'll gridlock right at that point, because, for example, we've got international competitors who simply could not unload their cars off the ships if they had to comply, you see, if it was a two-way street, just couldn't do it. We have got to stop sending jobs overseas. To those of you in the audience who are business people, pretty simple: If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers, and you can move your factory south of the border, pay $1 an hour for labor, hire young -- let's assume you've been in business for a long time; you've got a mature work force -- pay $1 an hour for your labor, have no health care -- that's the most expensive single element in making a car -- have no environmental controls, no pollution controls, and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south. So if the people send me to Washington, the first thing I'll do is study that 2,000-page agreement and make sure it's a two-way street. I have one last part here. I decided I was dumb and didn't understand it, so I called the "Who's Who" of the folks that have been around it. And I said, "Why won't everybody go south?" They say, "It would be disruptive." I said, "For how long?" I finally got them up for 12 to 15 years. And I said, "Well, how does it stop being disruptive?" And that is, when their jobs come up from $1 an hour to $6 an hour, and ours go down to $6 an hour, then it's leveled again. But in the meantime, you've wrecked the country with these kinds of deals. We've got to cut it out. Ms. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Perot. I see that the President has stood up, so he must have something to say about this. President Bush. Well, Carole, the thing that saved us in this global economic slowdown has been our exports, and what I'm trying to do is increase our exports. If, indeed, all the jobs were going to move south because of lower wages, there are lower wages now, and they haven't done that. So I have just negotiated with the President of Mexico the North American free trade agreement, and the Prime Minister of Canada, I might add. I want to have more of these free trade agreements because export jobs are increasing far faster than any jobs that may have moved overseas. That's a scare tactic, because it's not that many. But any one that's here, we want to have more jobs here, and the way to do that is to increase our exports. Some believe in protection. I don't. I believe in free and fair trade. That's the thing that saved us. And so I will keep on, as President, trying to get a successful conclusion to the GATT round, the big Uruguay round of trade which will really open up markets for our agriculture, particularly. I want to continue to work after we get this NAFTA agreement ratified this coming year. I want to get one with Eastern Europe. I want to get one with Chile. Free and fair trade is the answer, not protection. As I say, we've had tough economic times, and it's exports that have saved us, exports that have built -- -- Ms. Simpson. Governor Clinton. Governor Clinton. I'd like to answer the question, because I've actually been a Governor for 12 years, so I've known a lot of people who have lost their jobs because of jobs moving overseas, and I know a lot of people whose plants have been strengthened by increasing exports. The trick is to expand our export base and to expand trade on terms that are fair to us. It is true that our exports to Mexico, for example, have gone up, and our trade deficit's gone down. It's also true that just today a record-high trade deficit was announced with Japan. So what is the answer? Let me just mention three things very quickly. Number one, make sure that other countries are as open to our markets as our markets are to them. If they're not, have measures on the books that don't take forever and a day to implement. Number two, change the Tax Code. There are more deductions in the Tax Code for shutting plants down and moving overseas than there are for modernizing plants and equipment here. Our competitors don't do that. Emphasize and subsidize modernizing plants and equipment here, not moving plants overseas. Number three, stop the Federal Government's program that now gives low interest loans and job training funds to companies that will actually shut down and move to other countries, but we won't do the same thing for plants that stay here. So more trade, but on fair terms, and favor investment in America. Ms. Simpson. Thank you. I think we have a question over here. Federal Deficit Q. This is for Governor Clinton. In the real world, that is, outside of Washington, DC, compensation and achievement are based on goals defined and achieved. My question is about the deficit. Would you define in specific dollar goals how much you would reduce the deficit in each of the 4 years of a Clinton administration and then enter into a legally binding contract with the American people that if you did not achieve those goals that you would not seek a second term? Answer yes or no, and then comment on your answer, please. Governor Clinton. No, and here's why; I'll tell you exactly why, because the deficit now has been building up for 12 years. I'll tell you exactly what I think can be done. I think we can bring it down by 50 percent in 4 years and grow the economy. Now, I could get rid of it in 4 years in theory on the books now, but to do it you'd have to raise taxes too much and cut benefits too much to people who need them, and it would even make the economy worse. Mr. Perot will tell you, for example, that the expert he hired to analyze his plan says that it will bring the deficit down in 5 years, but it will make unemployment bad for 4 more years. So my view is, sir, you have to increase investment, grow the economy, and reduce the deficit by controlling health care costs, prudent reductions in defense, cuts in domestic programs, and asking the wealthiest Americans and foreign corporations to pay their fair share of taxes, and investing in growing this economy. I ask everybody to look at my economic ideas. Nine Nobel Prize winners and over 500 economists and hundreds of business people, including a lot of Republicans, said this is the way you've got to go. If you don't grow the economy, you can't get it done. But I can't foresee all the things that will happen, and I don't think a President should be judged solely on the deficit. Let me also say we're having an election today. You'll have a shot at me in 4 years, and you can vote me right out if you think I've done a lousy job. I would welcome you to do that. Ms. Simpson. Mr. President? President Bush. Well, I've got to -- I'm a little confused here because I don't see how you can grow the deficit down by raising people's taxes. You see, I don't think the American people are taxed too little. I think they're taxed too much. I went for one tax increase, and when I make a mistake, I admit it, say that wasn't the right thing to do. Governor Clinton's program wants to tax more and spend more: $150 billion in new taxes, spend another $220 billion. I don't believe that's the way to do it. Here's some things that will help. Give us a balanced budget amendment. He always talks about Arkansas having a balanced budget, and they do. But he has a balanced budget amendment; have to do it. I'd like the Government to have that. I think it would discipline not only the Congress, which needs it, but also the executive branch. I'd like to have what 43 Governors have, the line-item veto. So if the Congress can't cut, we've got a reckless spending Congress, let the President have a shot at it by wiping out things that are pork barrel or something of that nature. I've proposed another one. Some sophisticates think it may be a little gimmicky. I think it's good. It's a check-off. It says to you as a taxpayer -- say, you're going to pay a tax of $1,000 or something; you can check 10 percent of that if you want to in one box, and that 10 percent, $100, or if you're paying $10,000, whatever it is, $1,000, check it off, and make the Government, make it lower the deficit by that amount. If the Congress won't do it, if they can't get together and negotiate how to do that, then you'd have a sequester across the board. You'd exempt Social Security. I don't want to tax or touch Social Security. I'm the President that said, "Hey, don't mess with Social Security." And we haven't. So I believe we need to control the growth of mandatory spending, back to this gentleman's question, that's the main growing thing in the budget. The program that the President -- two-thirds of the budget, I, as President, never get to look at, never get to touch. We've got to control that growth to inflation and population increase, but not raise taxes on the American people now. I just don't believe that would stimulate any kind of growth at all. Ms. Simpson. How about you, Mr. Perot? Mr. Perot. Well, we're $4 trillion in debt, and we're going into debt an additional $1 billion, a little more than $1 billion, every working day of the year. Now, the thing I love about it -- I'm just a businessman. I was down in Texas, taking care of business, tending to my family. This situation got so bad that I decided I had better get into it. The American people asked me to get into it. But I just find it fascinating that while we sit here tonight, we will go into debt an additional $50 million in an hour and a half. Now, it's not the Republicans' fault, of course, and it's not the Democrats' fault. What I'm looking for is who did it? Now, they're the two folks involved; so maybe if you put them together, they did it. Now, the facts are we have to fix it. I'm here tonight for these young people up here in the balcony from this college. When I was a young man, when I got out of the Navy, I had multiple job offers. Young people with high grades can't get a job. The 18- to 24-year-old high school graduates 10 years ago were making more than they are now. In other words, we were down to -- 18 percent of them were making -- the 18- to 24-year-olds were making less than $12,000. Now that's up to 40 percent. And what's happening in the meantime? The dollar's gone through the floor. Now, whose fault is that? Not the Democrats; not the Republicans. Somewhere out there there's an extraterrestrial that's doing this to us, I guess. [Laughter] And everybody says they take responsibility. Somebody, somewhere has to take responsibility for this. Put it to you bluntly, the American people: If you want me to be your President, we're going to face our problems. We'll deal with the problems. We'll solve our problems. We'll pay down our debt. We'll pass on the American dream to our children. I will not leave our children a situation that they have today. When I was a boy, it took two generations to double the standard of living. Today it will take 12 generations. Our children will not see the American dream because of this debt that somebody, somewhere dropped on us. Ms. Simpson. You're all wonderful speakers, and I know you have lots more to add. But I have talked to this audience, and they have lots of questions on other topics. Can we move to another topic, please? We have one up here, I think. Presidential Campaign Q. Yes, I'd like to address all the candidates with this question. The amount of time the candidates have spent in this campaign trashing their opponents' character and their programs is depressingly large. Why can't your discussions and proposals reflect the genuine complexity and the difficulty of the issues to try to build a consensus around the best aspects of all proposals? Ms. Simpson. Who wants to take that one? Mr. Perot, you have an answer for everything, don't you? Go right ahead, sir. [Laughter] Mr. Perot. No, I don't have an answer for everything. As you all know, I've been buying 30-minute segments to talk about issues. Tomorrow night on NBC from 10:30 to 11, eastern, we're going to talk about how you pay the debt down. So we're going to come right down to that one, see. We'll be on again Saturday night 8 to 9 o'clock on ABC. [Laughter] Ms. Simpson. Okay, okay. Mr. Perot. So the point is, finally, I couldn't agree with you more, couldn't agree with you more. And I have said again and again and again, let's get off mud wrestling. Let's get off personalities, and let's talk about jobs, health care, crime, the things that concern the American people. I'm spending my money, not PAC money, not foreign money, my money to take this message to the people. Ms. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Perot. So that seems directed. He would say it's you gentlemen that have been doing that. Mr. Clinton, Governor Clinton, how do you -- President Bush, how would you like to respond? President Bush. Well, first place, I believe that character is a part of being President. I think you have to look at it. I think that has to be a part of candidate for President or being President. In terms of programs, I've submitted, what, four different budgets to the United States Congress in great detail. They're so heavy they'd give you a broken back. Everything in there says what I am for. Now, I've come out with a new agenda for America's renewal, a plan that I believe really will help stimulate the growth of this economy. My record on world affairs is pretty well-known because I've been President for 4 years. So I feel I've been talking issues. Nobody likes "who shot John," but I think the first negative campaign run in this election was by Governor Clinton. And I'm not going to sit there and be a punching bag. I'm going to stand up and say, "Hey, listen, here's my side of it." But character is an important part of the equation. The other night, Governor Clinton raised -- I don't know if you saw the debate the other night, suffered through that. [Laughter] Well, he raised a question of my father. It was a good line, well-rehearsed and well-delivered. But he raised a question of my father and said, "Well, your father, Prescott Bush, was against McCarthy. You should be ashamed of yourself -- McCarthyism." I remember something my dad told me. I was 18 years old, going to Penn Station to go into the Navy. He said, "Write your mother," which I faithfully did. He said, "Serve your country." My father was an honor, duty, and country man. And he said, "Tell the truth." And I've tried to do that in public life, all through it. That has said something about character. My argument with Governor Clinton -- you can call it mud wrestling, but I think it's fair to put it in focus -- is I am deeply troubled by someone who demonstrates and organizes demonstration in a foreign land when his country's at war. Probably a lot of kids here disagree with me, but that's what I feel. That's what I feel passionately about. I'm thinking of Ross Perot's running mate sitting in the jail; how would he feel about it? But maybe that's generational. I don't know. But the big argument I have with the Governor on this is this taking different positions on different issues, trying to be one thing to one person here that's opposing the NAFTA agreement and then for it; what we call waffling. And I do think that you can't turn the White House into the waffle house. You've got to say what you're for. And you have got to -- -- Ms. Simpson. Mr. President, I am getting time cues, and with all due respect, I'm sorry. President Bush. Excuse me, I don't want to -- no, go ahead, Carole. Ms. Simpson. Governor Clinton. President Bush. I get wound up because I feel strongly. Ms. Simpson. Yes, you do. [Laughter] Governor Clinton. Let me say first of all to you that I believe so strongly in the question you asked that I suggested this format tonight. I started doing these formats a year ago in New Hampshire, and I found that we had huge crowds because all I did was let people ask questions, and I tried to give very specific answers. I also had a program starting last year. I've been disturbed by the tone and the tenor of this campaign. Thank goodness the networks have a fact check so I don't have to just go blue in the face anymore. Mr. Bush said once again tonight I was going to have a $150 billion tax increase. When Mr. Quayle said that, all the networks said: that's not true; he's got over $100 billion in tax cuts and incentives. So I'm not going to take up your time tonight, but let me just say this. We'll have a debate in 4 days, and we can talk about this character thing again, but the Washington Post ran a long editorial today saying they couldn't believe Mr. Bush was making character an issue, and they said he was the greatest political chameleon, for changing his positions, of all time. Now, I don't want to get into that -- -- President Bush. Please don't say anything by the Washington Post. Governor Clinton. Wait a minute. Let's don't -- you don't have to believe that. Here's my point. I'm not interested in his character. I want to change the character of the Presidency. And I'm interested in what we can trust him to do and what you can trust me to do and what you can trust Mr. Perot to do for the next 4 years. So I think you're right, and I hope the rest of the night belongs to you. Ms. Simpson. May I -- I talked to this audience before you gentlemen came, and I asked them about how they felt about the tenor of the campaign. Would you like to let them know what you thought about that, when I said, "Are you pleased with how the campaign's been going?" Audience members. No! Ms. Simpson. Who wants to say why you don't like the way the campaign is going? We have a gentleman back here? Focusing on Issues Q. If I may, and forgive the notes here, but I'm shy on camera. The focus of my work as a domestic mediator is meeting the needs of the children that I work with by way of their parents, and not the wants of their parents. I ask the three of you, how can we as, symbolically, the children of the future President, expect the two of you, the three of you, to meet our needs, the needs in housing and in crime and you name it, as opposed to the wants of your political spin doctors and your political parties? Ms. Simpson. So your question is -- -- Q. Can we focus on the issues and not the personalities and the mud? I think there is a need -- if we could take a poll here with the folks from Gallup, perhaps -- I think there is a real need here to focus at this point on the needs. Ms. Simpson. How do you respond? How do you gentlemen respond to -- -- Governor Clinton. I agree with him. Ms. Simpson. President Bush? President Bush. Let's do it. Let's talk about programs for children. Q. Could we cross our hearts, and it sounds silly here, but could we make a commitment? You know, we're not under oath at this point, but could you make a commitment to the citizens of the United States to meet our needs, and we have many, and not yours again? You know, I repeat that; that's a real need I think that we all have. President Bush. I think it depends on how you define it. I mean, I think, in general, let's talk about these issues, let's talk about the programs. But in the Presidency, a lot goes into it. Caring goes into it; that's not particularly specific. Strength goes into it; that's not specific. Standing up against aggression; that's not specific in terms of a program. This is what a President has to do. So, in principle, though, I'll take your point. I think we ought to discuss child care or whatever else it is. Ms. Simpson. And you two? Governor Clinton. Ross had his hand up. Mr. Perot. No hedges, no ifs, ands, and buts, I'll take the pledge, because I know the American people want to talk about issues and not tabloid journalism. So I'll take the pledge, and we'll stay on the issues. Now, just for the record, I don't have any spin doctors. I don't have any speechwriters. Probably shows. [Laughter] I make those charts you see on television even. [Laughter] But you don't have to wonder if it's me talking. Hey, what you see is what you get. If you don't like it, you've got two other choices, right? Governor Clinton. Wait a minute. I want to say just one thing now, Ross, in fairness. The ideas I express are mine. I've worked on these things for 12 years, and I'm the only person up here who hasn't been part of Washington in any way for the last 20 years. So I don't want the implication to be that somehow everything we say is just cooked up and put in our head by somebody else. I worked 12 years very hard as a Governor on the real problems of real people. I'm just as sick as you are by having to wake up and figure out how to defend myself every day. I never thought I'd ever be involved in anything like this. Mr. Perot. May I finish? Ms. Simpson. Yes, you may finish. Mr. Perot. Very briefly? Ms. Simpson. Yes, very briefly. Mr. Perot. I don't have any foreign money in my campaign. I don't have any foreign lobbyists on leave in my campaign. I don't have any PAC money in my campaign. I've got 5 1/2 million hard-working people who have put me on the ballot, and I belong to them. Ms. Simpson. Okay. Mr. Perot. And they are interested in what you're interested in. I'll take the pledge. I've already taken the pledge on cutting the deficit in half. I never got to say that. There's a great young group, Lead or Leave, college students, young people who don't want us to spend their money. I took the pledge we'd cut it out. Ms. Simpson. Thank you. We have a question here. Domestic Infrastructure Q. Yes. I would like to get a response from all three gentlemen. And the question is, what are your plans to improve the physical infrastructure of this Nation, which includes the water system, the sewer system, our transportation systems, et cetera? Thank you. Ms. Simpson. The cities. Who is going to fix the cities, and how? President Bush. I'd be glad to take a shot at it. Ms. Simpson. Please. President Bush. I'm not sure that -- and I can understand if you haven't seen this because there's been a lot of hue and cry. We passed this year the most farthest looking transportation bill in the history of this country since Eisenhower started the interstate highways, $150 billion for improving the infrastructure. That happened when I was President. So I am very proud of the way that came about, and I think it's a very, very good beginning. Like Mr. Perot, I am concerned about the deficits. And $150 billion is a lot of money, but it's awful hard to say we're going to go out and spend more money when we're trying to get the deficit down. But I would cite that as a major accomplishment. We hear all the negatives. When you're President, you expect this. Everybody's running against the incumbent. They can do better; everyone knows that. But here's something that we can take great pride in because it really does get to what you're talking about. Our home initiative, our homeownership initiative, HOPE, that passed the Congress is a good start for having people own their own homes instead of living in these deadly tenements. Our enterprise zones that we hear a lot of lip service about in Congress would bring jobs into the inner city. There's a good program. I need the help of everybody across this country to get it passed in substantial way by the Congress. When we went out to South Central in Los Angeles -- some of you may remember the riots there. I went out there. I went to a boys club, and every one of them, the boys club leaders, the ministers, all of them were saying, pass enterprise zones. We go back to Washington, and very difficult to get it through the Congress. But there's going to be a new Congress. No one likes gridlock. There's going to be a new Congress because the old one, I don't want to get this man mad at me, but there was a post office scandal and a bank scandal. You're going to have a lot of new Members of Congress. And then you can sit down and say, "Help me do what we should for the cities. Help me pass these programs." Ms. Simpson. Mr. President, aren't you threatening to veto the bill, the urban aid bill, that included enterprise zones? President Bush. Sure, but the problem is you get so many things included in a great big bill that you have to look at the overall good. That's the problem with our system. If you had a line-item veto, you could knock out the pork. You could knock out the tax increases, and you could do what the people want, and that is create enterprise zones. Ms. Simpson. Governor Clinton, you're chomping at the bit. Governor Clinton. That bill pays for these urban enterprise zones by asking the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more, and that's why he wants to veto it, just like he vetoed an earlier bill this year. This is not mud slinging. This is fact slinging. President Bush. There you go. Governor Clinton. A bill earlier this year -- this is fact -- that would have given investment tax credits and other incentives to reinvest in our cities and our country. But it asked the wealthiest Americans to pay a little more. Mr. Perot wants to do the same thing. I agree with him. I mean, we agree with that. Let me tell you specifically what my plan does: My plan would dedicate $20 billion a year in each of the next 4 years for investments in new transportation, communications, environmental cleanup, and new technologies for the 21st century. We would target it especially in areas that have been either depressed or which have lost a lot of defense-related jobs. There are 200,000 people in California, for example, who have lost their defense-related jobs. They ought to be engaged in making high-speed rail. They ought to be engaged in breaking ground in other technologies, doing waste recycling, clean water technology, and things of that kind. We can create millions of jobs in these new technologies, more than we're going to lose in defense if we target it. But we're investing a much smaller percentage of our income in the things you just asked about than all of our major competitors. Our wealth growth is going down as a result of it. It's making the country poorer, which is why I answered the gentleman the way I did before. We have to both bring down the deficit and get our economy going through these kinds of investments in order to get the kind of wealth and jobs and incomes we need in America. Ms. Simpson. Mr. Perot, what about your plans for the cities? You want to tackle the economy and the deficit first. Mr. Perot. First, you've got to have money to pay for these things. So you've got to create jobs, and there are all kinds of ways to create jobs in the inner city. Now, I am not a politician, but I think I could go to Washington in a week and get everybody holding hands and get this bill signed, because I talked to the Democratic leaders, and they want it. I talked to the Republican leaders, and they want it. But since they are bred from childhood to fight with one another rather than get results, I would be glad to drop out and spend a little time and see if we couldn't build some bridges. Now, results is what counts. The President can't order Congress around. Congress can't order the President around. That's not bad for a guy that's never been there, right? But you have to work together. Now, I have talked to the chairmen of the committees that want this; they're Democrats. The President wants it. But we can't get it because we sit here in gridlock because it's a campaign year. We didn't fund a lot of other things this year, like the savings and loan mess. That's another story that we're going to pay a big price for right after the election. The facts are, though, the facts are the American people are hurting. These people are hurting in the inner cities. We're shipping the low-paying, quote, "low-paying" jobs overseas. What are low-paying jobs? Textiles, shoes, things like that that we say are yesterday's industries. They're tomorrow's industries in the inner city. Let me say in my case, if I'm out of work, I'll cut grass tomorrow to take care of my family. I'll be happy to make shoes. I'll be happy to make clothing. I'll make sausage. You just give me a job. Put those jobs in the inner cities, instead of doing diplomatic deals and shipping them to China, where prison labor does the work. Washington Gridlock Ms. Simpson. Mr. Perot, everybody thought you won the first debate because you were plain-speaking, and you make it sound, oh, so simple. "We'll just do it." What makes you think that you're going to be able to get the Democrats and Republicans together any better than these guys? Mr. Perot. If you asked me if I could fly a fighter plane or be an astronaut, I can't. I've spent my life creating jobs. It's something I know how to do, and very simply in the inner city, they're starved. You see, small businesses is the way to jump-start the inner city. Ms. Simpson. Are you answering my question? [Laughter] Mr. Perot. You want jobs in the inner city? Do you want jobs in the inner city? Is that your question? Ms. Simpson. No, I want you to tell me how you're going to be able to get the Republicans and Democrats in Congress -- -- Mr. Perot. Oh, I'm sorry. Ms. Simpson. -- -- to work together better than these two gentlemen. Mr. Perot. I've listened to both sides. If they would talk to one another instead of throwing rocks, I think we could get a lot done. And among other things, I would say, okay, over here in this Senate committee, to the chairman who is anxious to get this bill passed, to the President who's anxious, I'd say, "Rather than just yelling at one another, why don't we find out where we're apart; try to get together. Get the bill passed, and give the people the benefits, and not play party politics right now." I think the press would follow that so closely that probably they would get it done. That's the way I would do it. I doubt if they'll give me the chance, but I will drop everything and go work on it. Ms. Simpson. Okay. I have a question here. Gun Control and Crime Q. My question was originally for Governor Clinton, but I think I would welcome a response from all three candidates. As you are aware, crime is rampant in our cities. In the Richmond area, and I'm sure it's happened elsewhere, 12-year-olds are carrying guns to school. And I'm sure when our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they did not mean for the right to bear arms to apply to 12-year-olds. So I'm asking, where do you stand on gun control, and what do you plan to do about it? Ms. Simpson. Governor Clinton? Governor Clinton. I support the right to keep and bear arms. I live in a State where over half the adults have hunting or fishing licenses or both. But I believe we have to have some way of checking handguns before they're sold, to check the criminal history, the mental health history, and the age of people who are buying them. Therefore, I support the Brady bill, which would impose a national waiting period, unless and until a State did what only Virginia has done now, which is to automate its records. Once you automate your records, then you don't have to have a waiting period, but at least you can check. I also think we should have, frankly, restrictions on assault weapons, whose only purpose is to kill. We need to give the police a fighting chance in our urban areas where the gangs are building up. The third thing I would say doesn't bear directly on gun control, but it's very important. We need more police on the street. There is a crime bill which would put more police on the street, which was killed for this session by a filibuster in the Senate, mostly by Republican Senators. I think it's a shame it didn't pass. I think it should be made the law, but it had the Brady bill in it, the waiting period. I also believe that we should offer college scholarships to people who will agree to work them off as police officers. I think as we reduce our military forces, we should let people earn military retirement by coming out and working as police officers. Thirty years ago there were three police officers on the street for every crime. Today, there are three crimes for every police officer. In the communities which have had real success putting police officers near schools where kids carry weapons, to get the weapons out of the schools, or on the same blocks, you've seen crime go down. In Houston there's been a 15-percent drop in the crime rate in the last year because of the work the Mayor did there in increasing the police force. So I know it can work. I've seen it happen. Ms. Simpson. Thank you. President Bush? President Bush. I think you put your finger on a major problem. I talk about strengthening the American family. It's very hard to strengthen the family if people are scared to walk down to the corner store and send their kid down to get a loaf of bread. It's very hard. I have been fighting for very strong anticrime legislation: habeas corpus reform, so you don't have these endless appeals; so when somebody gets sentenced, hey, this is for real. I've been fighting for changes in the exclusionary rule, so if an honest cop stops somebody and makes a technical mistake, the criminal doesn't go away. I'll probably get into a fight in this room with some, but I happen to think that we need stronger death penalties for those that kill police officers. Virginia's in lead in this, as Governor Clinton properly said, on this identification system for firearms. I am not for national registration of firearms. Some of the States that have the toughest antigun laws have the highest levels of crime. I am for the right -- as the Governor says, I'm a sportsman, and I don't think you ought to eliminate all kinds of weapons. But I was not for the bill that he was talking about because it was not tough enough on the criminal. I'm very pleased that the Fraternal Order of Police in Little Rock, Arkansas, endorsed me, because I think they see I'm trying to strengthen the anticrime legislation. We've got more money going out for local police than any previous administration. So we've got to get it under control. And as one last point I'd make: drugs. We have got to win our national strategy against drugs, the fight against drugs. We're making some progress, doing a little better on interdiction. We're not doing as well amongst the people that get to be habitual drug users. The good news is, and I think it's true in Richmond, teenage use is down of cocaine substantially, 60 percent in the last couple of years. So we're making progress. But until we get that one done, we're not going to solve the neighborhood crime problem. Ms. Simpson. Mr. Perot, there are young black males in America dying at unprecedented -- -- Mr. Perot. I would just make a comment on this. Ms. Simpson. Yes, I'm getting -- -- Mr. Perot. Oh, you're going to elaborate. Okay, excuse me. Ms. Simpson. -- -- to the fact that homicide is the leading cause of death among young black males, 15 to 24 years old. What are you going to do to get the guns off the street? Mr. Perot. On any program, and this includes crime, you'll find we have all kinds of great plans lying around that never get enacted into law and implemented. I don't care what it is, competitiveness, health care, crime, you name it. The Brady bill, I agree that it's a timid step in the right direction, but it won't fix it. So why pass a law that won't fix it? Now, what it really boils down to is can you live -- we have become so preoccupied with the rights of the criminal that we have forgotten the rights of the innocent. In our country, we have evolved to a point where we've put millions of innocent people in jail, because you go to the poor neighborhoods and they've put bars on their windows and bars on their doors and put themselves in jail to protect the things that they acquired legitimately. Now, that's where we are. We have got to become more concerned about people who play by the rules and get the balance we require. This is going to take, first, building a consensus in grassroots America. Right from the bottom up, the American people have got to say they want it. And at that point, we can pick from a variety of plans and develop new plans. And the way you get things done is bury yourselves in the room with one another, put together the best program, take it to the American people, use the electronic town hall, the kind of thing you're doing here tonight, build a consensus, and then do it and then go on to the next one. But don't just sit here slow dancing for 4 years doing nothing. Ms. Simpson. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Perot. We have a question up here. Term Limits Q. Please state your position on term limits. And if you are in favor of them, how will you get them enacted? President Bush. Any order? I'll be glad to respond. I strongly support term limits for Members of the United States Congress. I believe it would return the Government closer to the people, the way that Ross Perot is talking about. The President's terms are limited to two, a total of 8 years. What's wrong with limiting the terms of Members of Congress to 12? Congress has gotten kind of institutionalized. For 38 years, one party has controlled the House of Representatives. And the result? A sorry little post office that can't do anything right and a bank that has more overdrafts than all of Chase Bank and Citibank put together. We've got to do something about it. I think you get a certain arrogance, bureaucratic arrogance if people stay there too long. So I favor, strongly favor term limits. And how to get them passed? Send us some people that will pass the idea, and I think you will. I think the American people want it now. Everyplace I go, I talk about it, and I think they want it done. Actually, you'd have to have some amendments to the Constitution because of the way the Constitution reads. Ms. Simpson. Thank you. Governor Clinton? Governor Clinton. I know they're popular, but I'm against them. I'll tell you why. I believe, number one, it would pose a real problem for a lot of smaller States in the Congress who would have enough trouble now making sure their interests are heard. Number two, I think it would increase the influence of unelected staff members in the Congress who have too much influence already. I want to cut the size of the congressional staffs, but I think you're going to have too much influence there with people who were never elected who have lots of expertise. Number three, if the people really have a mind to change, they can. You're going to have 120 to 150 new Members of Congress. Now, let me tell you what I favor instead. I favor strict controls on how much you can spend running for Congress, strict limits on political action committees, requirements that people running for Congress appear in open public debates like we're doing now. If you did that, you could take away the incumbent's advantage, because challengers like me would have a chance to run against incumbents like him for the House races and Senate races, and then the voters could make up their own mind without being subject to an unfair fight. So that's how I feel about it, and I think if we had the right kind of campaign reform, we'd get the changes you want. Ms. Simpson. Mr. Perot, would you like to address term limitations? Mr. Perot. Yes. Let me do it first on a personal level. If the American people send me up to do this job, I intend to be there one term. I do not intend to spend one minute of one day thinking about reelection. It is a matter of principle. My situation is unique, and I understand it. I will take absolutely no compensation. I go as their servant. Now, I have set as strong an example as I can. And at that point, when we sit down over at Capitol Hill -- tomorrow night I'm going to be talking about Government reform. It is a long subject; you wouldn't let me finish tonight. If you want to hear it, you can get it tomorrow night. [Laughter] But the point is, you'll hear it tomorrow night. But we have got to reform Government. If you put term limits in and don't reform Government, you won't get the benefit you thought. It takes both. So we need to do the reforms and the term limits. And after we reform it, it won't be a lifetime career opportunity. Good people will go serve and then go back to their homes, and not become foreign lobbyists and cash in at 30,000 bucks a month, and then take time off to run some President's campaign. They're all nice people. They're just in a bad system. I don't think there are any villains, but boy, is the system rotten. Ms. Simpson. Thank you very much. We have a question over here. Health Care Reform Q. I'd like to ask Governor Clinton, do you attribute the rising costs of health care to the medical profession itself, or do you think the problem lies elsewhere? And what specific proposals do you have to tackle this problem? Governor Clinton. I've had more people talk to me about their health care problems, I guess, than anything else. All across America, people who have lost their jobs, lost their businesses, had to give up their jobs because of sick children -- so let me try to answer you in this way. Let's start with the premise. We spend 30 percent more of our income than any nation on Earth on health care. And yet, we insure fewer people. We have 35 million people without any insurance at all, and I see them all the time. One hundred thousand Americans a month have lost their health insurance just in the last 4 years. So if you analyze where we're out of line with other countries you come up with the following conclusions: Number one, we spend at least $60 billion a year on insurance, administrative costs, bureaucracy, and Government regulation that wouldn't be spent in any other nation. So we have to have, in my judgment, a drastic simplification of the basic health insurance policies of this country, be very comprehensive for everybody. Employers would cover their employees. Government would cover the unemployed. Number two, I think you have to take on specifically the insurance companies and require them to make some significant change in the way they rate people in the big community pools. I think you have to tell the pharmaceutical companies they can't keep raising drug prices at 3 times the rate of inflation. I think you have to take on medical fraud. I think you have to help doctors stop practicing defensive medicine. I've recommended that our doctors be given a set of national practice guidelines and that if they follow those guidelines, that raises the presumption that they didn't do anything wrong. I think you have to have a system of primary preventive clinics in our inner cities and our rural areas so people can have access to health care. But the key is to control the costs and maintain the quality. To do that, you need a system of managed competition where all of us are covered in big groups, and we can choose our doctors and our hospitals from a wide range, but there is an incentive to control costs. And I think there has to be -- I think Mr. Perot and I agree on this -- there has to be a national commission of health care providers and health care consumers that set ceilings to keep health costs in line with inflation plus population growth. Now, let me say, some people say we can't do this, but Hawaii does it. They cover 98 percent of their people, and their insurance premiums are much cheaper than the rest of America. So does Rochester, New York. They now have a plan to cover everybody, and their premiums are two-thirds the rest of the country. This is very important. It's a big human problem and a devastating economic problem for America. I'm going to send a plan to do this within the first 100 days of my Presidency. It's terribly important. Ms. Simpson. Thank you. Sorry to cut you short, but, President Bush, health care reform. President Bush. I just have to say something. I don't want to stampede -- Ross was very articulate. Across the country, I don't want anybody to stampede to cut the President's salary off altogether. Barbara is sitting over here, and I -- [laughter] -- but what I have proposed, 10 percent cut, downsize the Government, and we can get that done. She asked the question, I think, is whether the health care profession was to blame. No. One thing to blame is these malpractice lawsuits. They are breaking the system. It costs $20 to $25 billion a year, and I want to see those outrageous claims capped. Doctors don't dare to deliver babies sometimes because they're afraid that somebody's going to sue them. People don't dare, medical practitioners, to help somebody along the highway that are hurt because they're afraid that some lawyer's going to come along and get a big lawsuit. So you can't blame the practitioners or the health -- and my program is this: Keep the Government as far out of it as possible, make insurance available to the poorest of the poor through vouchers, next range in the income bracket through tax credits, and get on about the business of pooling insurance. A great, big company can buy -- Ross has got a good size company, been very successful. He can buy insurance cheaper than mom-and-pop stores on the corner. But if those mom-and-pop stores all get together and pool, they, too, can bring the cost of insurance down. So I want to keep the quality of health care. That means keep Government out of it. I don't like this idea of these boards. It all sounds to me like you're going to have some Government setting price. I want competition, and I want to pool the insurance and take care of it that way. Here's the other point. I think medical care should go with the person. If you leave a business, I think your insurance should go with you to some other business. You shouldn't be worrying if you get a new job as to whether that's going to -- and part of our plan is to make it what they call portable, big word, but that means if you're working for the Jones Company and you go to the Smith Company, your insurance goes with you. I think it's a good program. I'm really excited about getting it done, too. Ms. Simpson. Mr. Perot? Mr. Perot. We have the most expensive health care system in the world. Twelve percent of our gross national product goes to health care. Our industrial competitors, who are beating us in competition, spend less and have better health care. Japan spends a little over 6 percent of its gross national product; Germany spends 8 percent. It's fascinating. You bought a front-row box seat, and you're not happy with your health care. You're saying tonight we've got bad health care but very expensive health care. Folks, here's why. Go home and look in the mirror. You own this country, but you have no voice in it the way it's organized now. If you want to have a high-risk experience comparable to bungee jumping -- [laughter] -- go into Congress sometime when they're working on this kind of legislation, when the lobbyists are running up and down the halls. Wear your safety-toe shoes when you go. [Laughter] And as a private citizen, believe me, you are looked on as a major nuisance. The facts are, you now have a Government that comes at you. You're supposed to have a Government that comes from you. Now, there are all kinds of good ideas, brilliant ideas, terrific ideas on health care. None of them ever get implemented because -- let me give you an example. A Senator runs every 6 years. He's got to raise 20,000 bucks a week to have enough money to run. Who's he going to listen to, us or the folks running up and down the aisle with money, the lobbyists, the PAC money? He listens to them. Who do they represent? Health care industry. Not us. Now, you've got to have a Government that comes from you again. You've got to reassert your ownership in this country, and you've got to completely reform our Government. And at that point, they'll just be like apples falling out of a tree. The programs will be good because the elected officials will be listening, too. I said the other night I was all ears and I would listen to any good idea. I think we ought to do plastic surgery on a lot of these guys so that they're all ears, too, and listen to you. Then you get what you want, and shouldn't you? You paid for it. Why shouldn't you get what you want as opposed to what some lobbyist cuts a deal, writes the little piece in the law, and it goes through. That's the way the game's played now. Until you change it, you're going to be unhappy. Ms. Simpson. Thank you. Governor Clinton, you wanted one brief point. Governor Clinton. One brief point. We have elections so people can make decisions about this. The point I want to make to you is, a bipartisan commission reviewed my plan and the Bush plan and concluded -- there were as many Republicans as Democratic health care experts on it -- they concluded that my plan would cover everybody, and his would leave 27 million behind by the year 2000, and that my plan in the next 12 years would save $2.2 trillion in public and private money to reinvest in this economy. The average family would save $1,200 a year under the plan that I offered, without any erosion in the quality of health care. So I ask you to look at that. You have to vote for somebody with a plan. That's what you have elections for. If people say, "Well, he got elected to do this," and then the Congress says, "Okay, I'm going to do it." That's what the election was about. Ms. Simpson. Brief, Governor Clinton. Thank you. We have a question right here. Personal Impact of the Economy Q. Yes, how has the national debt personally affected each of your lives? And if it hasn't, how can you honestly find a cure for the economic problems of the common people if you have no experience in what's ailing them? Mr. Perot. May I answer it? Ms. Simpson. Well, Mr. Perot, yes, of course. Mr. Perot. Who do you want to start with? Q. My question is for each of you, so -- -- Mr. Perot. Yes, it caused me to disrupt my private life and my business to get involved in this activity. That's how much I care about it. Believe me, if you knew my family and if you knew the private life I have, you would agree in a minute that that's a whole lot more fun than getting involved in politics. I have lived the American dream. I came from a very modest background. Nobody's been luckier than I've been, all the way across the spectrum, and the greatest riches of all are my wife and children. It's true of any family. But I want all the children, I want these young people up here to be able to start with nothing but an idea like I did and build a business. But they've got to have a strong basic economy. And if you're in debt, it's like having a ball and chain around you. I just figure as lucky as I've been, I owe it to them, and I owe it to the future generations. And on a very personal basis, I owe it to my children and grandchildren. Ms. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Perot. Mr. President. President Bush. Well, I think the national debt affects everybody. Obviously, it has a lot to do with interest rates -- -- Ms. Simpson. She's saying you personally. Q. You, on a personal basis, how has it affected you? Ms. Simpson. Has it affected you personally? President Bush. Well, I'm sure it has. I love my grandchildren. I want to think that -- -- Q. How? President Bush. I want to think that they're going to be able to afford an education. I think that that's an important part of being a parent. If the question -- maybe I get it wrong. Are you suggesting that if somebody has means that the national debt doesn't affect them? Q. What I'm saying -- -- President Bush. I'm not sure I get it. Help me with the question, and I'll try to answer it. Q. Well, I've had friends that have been laid off in jobs -- -- President Bush. Yes. Q. I know people who cannot afford to pay the mortgage on their homes, their car payment. I have personal problems with the national debt. But how has it affected you? And if you have no experience in it, how can you help us if you don't know what we're feeling? Ms. Simpson. I think she means more the recession, the economic problems today the country faces rather than -- -- President Bush. Well, listen, you ought to be in the White House for a day and hear what I hear and see what I see and read the mail I read and touch the people that I touch from time to time. I was in the Lomax AME Church. It's a black church just outside of Washington, DC, and I read in the bulletin about teenage pregnancies, about the difficulty that families are having to make ends meet. I talked to parents. I mean, you've got to care. Everybody cares if people aren't doing well. But I don't think it's fair to say you haven't had cancer, therefore you don't know what it's like. I don't think it's fair to say, whatever it is, if you haven't been hit by it personally. But everybody's affected by the debt, because of the tremendous interest that goes into paying on that debt, everything's more expensive. Everything comes out of your pocket and my pocket. So it's that. But I think in terms of the recession, of course, you feel it when you're President of the United States. That's why I'm trying to do something about it by stimulating the export, investing more, better education system. Thank you. I'm glad you clarified it. Governor Clinton. Tell me how it's affected you again? You know people who have lost their jobs and lost their homes? Q. Yes. Governor Clinton. Well, I've been Governor of a small State for 12 years. I'll tell you how it's affected me. Every year, Congress and the President sign laws that make us do more things; it gives us less money to do it with. I see people in my State, middle class people, their taxes have gone up from Washington and their services have gone down, while the wealthy have gotten tax cuts. I have seen what's happened in this last 4 years when, in my State, when people lose their jobs there's a good chance I'll know them by their names. When a factory closes, I know the people who ran it. When the businesses go bankrupt, I know them. And I've been out here for 13 months, meeting in meetings just like this ever since October with people like you all over America, people that have lost their jobs, lost their livelihood, lost their health insurance. What I want you to understand is, the national debt is not the only cause of that. It is because America has not invested in its people. It is because we have not grown. It is because we've had 12 years of trickle-down economics. We've gone from 1st to 12th in the world in wages. We've had 4 years where we've produced no private sector jobs. Most people are working harder for less money than they were making 10 years ago. It is because we are in the grip of a failed economic theory. And this decision you're about to make better be about what kind of economic theory you want, not just people saying, "I want to go fix it," but what are we going to do. What I think we have to do is invest in American jobs, in American education, control American health care costs, and bring the American people together again. Ms. Simpson. Thank you, Governor Clinton. We are a little more than halfway through this program, and I'm glad that we're getting the diversity of questions that we are. And I don't want to forget these folks on the wings over here, so let's go over here. Do you have a question? Entitlement Programs Q. Yes, I do. My name is Ben Smith. I work in the financial field, counseling retirees. And I'm personally concerned about three major areas. One is the Social Security Administration or trust fund is projected to be insolvent by the year 2036. We've funded the trust fund with IOU's in the form of Treasury bonds. The pension guaranty fund which backs up our private retirement plans for retirees is projected to be bankrupt by the year 2026, not to mention the cutbacks by private companies. And Medicare is projected to be bankrupt maybe as soon as 1997. I would like from each of you a specific response as to what you intend to do for retirees relative to these issues, not generalities but specifics, because I think they're very disturbing issues. Ms. Simpson. President Bush, may we start with you? President Bush. Well, the Social Security -- you're an expert and I could, I'm sure, learn from you the details of the pension guaranty fund and the Social Security fund. The Social Security system was fixed, about 5 years, and I think it's projected out to be sound beyond that. So at least we have time to work with it. But on all of these things, a sound economy is the only way to get it going. Growth in the economy is going to add to the overall prosperity and wealth. I can't give you a specific answer on pension guaranty fund. All I know is that we have firm Government credit to guarantee the pensions, and that is very important. But the full faith in credit of the United States, in spite of our difficulties, is still pretty good. It's still the most respected credit. So I would simply say, as these dates get close you're going to have to reorganize and refix as we did with the Social Security fund. I think that's the only answer. But the more immediate answer is to do what this lady was suggesting we do, and that is to get this deficit down and get on without adding to the woes, and then restructure. One thing I've called for that has been stymied, and I'll keep on working for it, is a whole financial reform legislation. It is absolutely essential in terms of bringing our banking system and credit system into the new age instead of having it living back in the dark ages, and it's a big fight. I don't want to give my friend Ross another shot at me here, but I am fighting with the Congress to get this through. You can't just go up and say, "I'm going to fix it." You've got some pretty strong-willed guys up there that argue with you. But that's what the election's about; I agree with the Governor. That's what the election is about. Sound fiscal policy is the best answer, I think, to all the three problems you mentioned. Ms. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Perot? Mr. Perot. Just on a broad issue here. When you're trying to solve a problem, you get the best plans. You have a raging debate about those plans. Then out of that debate, with leadership, comes consensus. And if the plans are huge and complex, like health care, I would urge you to implement pilot programs. Like the older carpenter says, measure twice, cut once. Let's make sure this thing's as good as we all think it is at the end of the meeting. Then, finally, our Government passes laws and freezes the plan in concrete. Anybody that's ever built a successful business will tell you, you optimize, optimize, optimize after you put something into effect. The reason Medicare and Medicaid are a mess is we froze them. Everybody knows how to fix them. There are people all over the Federal Government if they could just touch it with a screwdriver could fix it. Now, back over here. See, we've got a $4 trillion debt, and only in America would you have $2.8 trillion of it, or 70 percent of it, financed 5 years or less. Now, that's another thing for you to think about when you go home tonight. You don't finance long-term debt with short-term money. Why did our Government do it? To get the interest rates down. A one-percent increase in interest rates in that $2.8 trillion is $28 billion a year. Now, when you look at what Germany pays for money and what we don't pay for money, you realize there's quite a spread, right? You realize this is a temporary thing and there's going to be another sucking sound that runs our deficit through the roof. You know, and everybody's ducking it so I'm going to say it, that we are not letting that surplus stay in the bank. We are not investing that surplus like a pension fund. We are spending that surplus to make the deficit look smaller to you than it really is. Now, that puts you in jail in corporate America if you kept books that way, but in Government it's just kind of the way things are. That's because it comes at you, not from you. Now then, that money needs to be -- they don't even pay interest on it, they just write a note for the interest. Ms. Simpson. Mr. Perot, can you wrap it up? Mr. Perot. Sure. But the point, see, do you want to fix the problem or sound-bite it? I understand the importance of time, but see, here's how we get to this mess we're in. This is just 1 of 1,000. Ms. Simpson. But we've got to be fair. Mr. Perot. Now then, to nail it, there's one way out, a growing, expanding job base, a growing, expanding job base to generate the funds and the tax revenues to pay off the mess and rebuild America. We've got to double hit. If we're $4 trillion down, we should have everything perfect, but we don't. We've got to pay it off and build money to renew it, spend money to renew it, and that's going to take a growing, expanding job base. That is priority one in this country. Put everybody that's breathing to work. I'd love to be out of workers and have to import them, like some of our international competitors. Ms. Simpson. Mr. Perot, I'm sorry, I'm going to -- -- Mr. Perot. Sorry. Ms. Simpson. And I don't want to sound-bite you, but we are trying to be fair to everyone. Mr. Perot. No, absolutely. I apologize. Ms. Simpson. All right, Governor Clinton. Governor Clinton. I think I remember the question. [Laughter] Let me say first of all, I want to answer your specific question, but first of all, we all agree that there should be a growing economy. What you have to decide is who's got the best economic plan. We all have ideas out there, and Mr. Bush has a record. I don't want you to read my lips, and I sure don't want you to read his. [Laughter] I do hope you will read our plans. Now, specifically -- -- President Bush. [Inaudible] -- first rule? Governor Clinton. -- -- one, on Medicare, it is not true that everyone knows how to fix it; there are different ideas. The Bush plan, the Perot plan, the Clinton -- we have different ideas. I am convinced, having studied health care for a year, hard, and talking to hundreds and hundreds of people all across America, that you cannot control the costs of Medicare until you control the cost of private health care and public health care with managed competition, ceiling on cost, and radical reorganization of the insurance markets. You've got to do that. We've got to get those costs down. Number two, with regard to Social Security, that program, a lot of you may not know this: It produces a $70 billion surplus a year. Social Security is in surplus $70 billion. Six increases in the payroll tax -- that means people with incomes of $51,000 a year or less pay a disproportionately high share of the Federal tax burden, which is why I want some middle class tax relief. What do we have to do? By the time the century turns, we have got to have our deficit under control, we have to work out of so that surplus is building up, so when the baby boomers like me retire, we're okay. Number three, on the pension funds, I don't know as much about it, but I will say this: What I will do is to bring in the pension experts of the country, take a look at it, and strengthen the pension requirements further, because it's not just enough to have the guarantee. We had a guarantee on the S&L's, right? We had a guarantee, and what happened? You picked up a $500 billion bill because of the dumb way the Federal Government deregulated it. So I think we are going to have to change and strengthen the pension requirements on private retirement plans. Ms. Simpson. Thank you. I think we have a question here on international affairs, hopefully. Foreign Affairs Q. We've come to a position where we're in the new world order. And I'd like to know what the candidates feel our position is in this new world order and what our responsibilities are as a superpower. Ms. Simpson. Mr. President? President Bush. We have come to that position. Since I became President, 43, 44 countries have gone democratic. No longer totalitarian, no longer living under dictatorship or communist rule. This is exciting. This new world order to me means freedom and democracy. I think we will have a continuing responsibility, as the only remaining superpower, to stay involved. If we pull back in some isolation and say we don't have to do our share, or more than our share, anymore, I believe you're going to just ask for conflagration that we'll get involved in in the future. NATO, for example, has kept the peace for many, many years. I want to see us keep fully staffed in NATO so we'll continue to guarantee the peace in Europe. But the exciting thing is the fear of nuclear war is down. You hear all the bad stuff that's happened on my watch. I hope people will recognize that this is something pretty good for mankind. I hope they'll think it's good that democracy and freedom is on the move. And we're going to stay engaged, as long as I am President, working to improve things. You know, it's so easy now to say, hey, cut out foreign aid, we've got a problem at home. I think the United States has to still have the Statue of Liberty as a symbol of caring for others. We're right this very minute, we're sending supplies in to help these little starving kids in Somalia. It's the United States that's taken the lead in humanitarian aid into Bosnia. We're doing this all around the world. And yes, we've got problems at home. I think I've got a good plan to help fix those problems at home. But because of our leadership, because we didn't listen to the freeze, the nuclear freeze group -- do you remember: "Freeze it," back in about in the late seventies. "Freeze, don't touch it. We're going to lock it in now, or else we'll have war." President Reagan said, "No. Peace through strength." It worked. The Soviet Union is no more. Now we're working to help them become totally democratic through the FREEDOM Support Act that I led on. A great Democratic Ambassador, Bob Strauss over there, Jim Baker, all of us got this thing passed, through cooperation, Ross. It worked with cooperation. And you're for that, I'm sure, helping Russia become democratic. So the new world order to me means freedom and democracy, keep engaged, do not pull back into isolation. We are the United States, and we have a responsibility to lead and to guarantee the security. If it hadn't been for us, Saddam Hussein would be sitting on top of three-fifths of the oil supply of the world, and he'd have nuclear weapons. Only the United States could do this. Excuse me, Carole. Ms. Simpson. Thank you. Mr. Perot. Mr. Perot. Well, it's cost-effective to help Russia succeed in its revolution. It's pennies on the dollar compared to going back to the cold war. Russia's still very unstable. They could go back to square one and worse. All the nuclear weapons are not dismantled. I'm particularly concerned about the intercontinental weapons, the ones that can hit us. We've got agreements, but they're still there. With all this instability and breaking into Republics and all the Middle Eastern countries going over there and shopping for weapons, we've got our work cut out for us. So we need to stay right on top of that and constructively help them move toward democracy and capitalism. We have to have money to do that. We have to have our people at work. See, for 45 years, we were preoccupied with the Red Army. I suggest now that our number one preoccupation is red ink in our country. And we've got to put our people back to work so that we can afford to do these things we want to do in Russia. We cannot be the policeman for the world any longer. We spend $300 billion a year defending the world. Germany and Japan spend around $30 billion apiece. It's neat. If I can get you to defend me and I can spend all my money building industry, that's a home run for me. Coming out of World War II, it made sense. Now the other superpowers need to do their part. I'll close on this point: You can't be a superpower unless you're an economic superpower. If we're not an economic superpower, we are a used-to-be, and we will no longer be a force for good throughout the world. If nothing else gets you excited about rebuilding our industrial base, maybe that will, because job one is to put our people back to work. Ms. Simpson. Governor Clinton, the President mentioned Saddam Hussein. Your vice president and you have had some words about the President and Saddam Hussein. Would you care to comment? Governor Clinton. I'd rather answer her question first, and then I'll be glad to, because the question you ask is important. The end of the cold war brings an incredible opportunity for change, the winds of freedom blowing around the world, Russia demilitarizing. It also requires us to maintain some continuity, some bipartisan American commitment to certain principles. I would just say there are three things that I would like to say. Number one, we do have to maintain the world's strongest defense. We may differ about what the elements of that are. I think the defense needs to be with fewer people and permanent armed services, but with greater mobility on the land, in the air, and on the sea, with a real dedication to continuing development of high-technology weaponry and well-trained people. I think we're going to have to work to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. We've got to keep going until all those nuclear weapons in Russia are gone and the other Republics. Number two, if you don't rebuild the economic strength of this country at home, we won't be a superpower. We can't have any more instances like what happened when Mr. Bush went to Japan and the Japanese Prime Minister said he felt sympathy for our country. We have to be the strongest economic power in the world. That's what got me into this race, so we could rebuild the American economy. Number three, we need to be a force for freedom and democracy. We need to use our unique position to support freedom, whether it's in Haiti or in China or in any other place, wherever the seeds of freedom are sprouting. We can't impose it, but we need to nourish it. That's the kind of thing that I would do as President, follow those three commitments into the future. Ms. Simpson. Okay, we have a question up there. Education Q. We've talked a lot tonight about creating jobs. But we have an awful lot of high school graduates who don't know how to read a ruler, who cannot fill out an application for a job. How can we create high-paying jobs with the education system we have? And what would you do to change it? Ms. Simpson. Who would like to begin? The education President? President Bush. I'd be delighted to, because you can't do it the old way. You can't do it with the school bureaucracy controlling everything. And that's why we have a new program that I hope people have heard about. It's being worked now in 1,700 communities -- I bypassed Congress on this one, Ross -- 1,700 communities across the country. It's called America 2000. It literally says to the communities: Reinvent the schools, not just the bricks and mortar but the curriculum and everything else. Think anew. We have a concept called the New American School Corporation, where we're doing exactly that. So I believe that we've got to get the power in the hands of the teachers, not the teachers union -- what's happening up there? [Laughter] So our America 2000 program also says this: It says let's give parents the choice of a public, private, or religious school. And it works. It works in Milwaukee. A Democratic woman up there taking the lead in this, the Mayor up there on the program, and the schools that are not chosen are improved. Competition does that. So we've got to innovate through school choice. We've got to innovate through this America 2000 program. But she is absolutely right. The programs that we've been trying where you control everything and mandate it from Washington don't work. The Governors -- and I believe Governor Clinton was in on this, but I don't want to invoke him here -- but they come to me, and they say, please get the Congress to stop passing so many mandates telling us how to control things. We know better how to do it in California or Texas or wherever it is. So this is what our program is all about. I believe -- you're right onto something -- that if we don't change the education, we're not going to be able to compete. Federal funding for education is up substantially. Pell Grants are up. But it isn't going to get the job done if we don't change K through 12. Ms. Simpson. Governor Clinton? Governor Clinton. First of all, let me say that I've spent more of my time in life on this in the last 12 years than any other issue. Seventy percent of my State's money goes to public schools. I was really honored when Time magazine said that our schools have shown more improvement than any other State in the country except one other. They named two States showing real strides forward in the eighties. So I care a lot about this, and I've spent countless hours in schools. But let me start with what you've said. I agree with some of what Mr. Bush said, but it's nowhere near enough. We live in a world where what you earn depends on what you can learn, where the average 18-year-old will change jobs eight times in a lifetime, and where none of us can promise any of you that what you now do for a living is absolutely safe from now on. Nobody running can promise that. There's too much change in the world. So what should we do? Let me reel some things off real quick, because you said you wanted specifics. Number one, under my program we would provide matching funds to States to teach everybody with a job to read in the next 5 years and give everybody with a job a chance to get a high school diploma, in big places, on the job. Number two, we would provide 2-year apprenticeship programs to high school graduates who don't go to college, in community colleges or on the job. Number three, we'd open the doors to college education to high school graduates without regard to income. They could borrow the money and pay it back as a percentage of their income over the couple of years of service to our Nation here home. Number four, we would fully fund the Head Start program to get little kids off to a good start. Five, I would have an aggressive program of school reform. More choices in the -- I favor public schools or these new charter schools. We can talk about that if you want. I don't think we should spend tax money on private schools, but I favor public school choice. I favor radical decentralization in giving more power to better trained principals and teachers with parent councils to control their schools. Those things would revolutionize American education and take us to the top economically. Ms. Simpson. Thank you, Governor Clinton. What the question is -- what is it going to cost? Q. What is it going to cost? Ms. Simpson. What is it going to cost? Governor Clinton. In 6 years -- I budget all this in my budget. In 6 years, the college program would cost $8 billion over and above what -- the present student loan program costs 4. You pay $3 billion for busted loans, because we don't have an automatic recovery system, and a billion dollars in bank fees. So the net cost will be $8 billion 6 years from now, in a trillion-plus budget: not very much. The other stuff, all the other stuff I mentioned costs much less than that. The Head Start program, full funding, would cost about $5 billion more. It's all covered in my budget from the plans that I've laid out, from raising taxes on families with incomes above $200,000, and asking foreign corporations to pay the same tax that American corporations do on the same income; from $140 billion in budget cuts, including what I think are very prudent cuts in the defense budget. It's all covered in the plan. Ms. Simpson. Mr. Perot, you on education, please. Mr. Perot. Yes. I've got scars to show from being around education reform. The first words you need to say in every city and State and just draw a line in the sand -- public schools exist for the benefit of the children -- you're going to see a lot of people fall over it, because any time you're spending $199 billion a year, somebody's getting it, and the children get lost in the process. So that's step one. Keep in mind in 1960 when our schools were the envy of the world, we were spending $16 billion on them. Now we spend more than any other nation in the world, $199 billion a year, and rank at the bottom of the industrialized world in terms of educational achievement. One more time, you've bought a front-row box seat and got a third-rate performance. This is a Government that's not serving you. By and large, it should be local. The more local, the better. Interesting phenomenon, small towns have good schools, big cities have terrible schools. The best people in a small town will serve on the school board. You get into big cities, it's political patronage, stepping stones. You get the job, give your relatives the janitor's job at $57,000 a year, more than the teachers make. And with luck, they clean the cafeteria once a week. [Laughter] Now, you're paying for that. Those schools belong to you, and we put up with that. As long as you put up with that, that's what you're going to get. These folks are just dividing up 199 billion bucks, and the children get lost. If I could wish for one thing for great public schools, it would be a strong family unit in every home. Nothing will ever replace that. You say, "Well, gee, what are you going to do about that?" Well, the White House is a bully pulpit, and I think we ought to be pounding on the table every day. There's nothing -- the most efficient unit of Government we'll ever know is a strong, loving family unit. Next thing. You need small schools, not big schools. A little school, everybody's somebody. Individualism is very important. These big factories, everybody told me they were cost-effective. I did a study on it. They're cost-ineffective. Five thousand students: why is a high school that big? One reason. Sooner or later, you get 11 more boys that can run like the devil, that weigh 250 pounds, and they might win district. Now, that has nothing to do with learning. Secondly, across Texas, typically half the school day was nonacademic pursuits. In one place, it was 35 percent. In Texas, you could have unlimited absences to go to livestock shows. Found a boy -- excuse me, but this gives the flavor -- a boy in Houston kept a chicken in the bathtub in downtown Houston. Missed 65 days going to livestock shows. Finally had to come back to school, the chicken lost his feathers. That's the only way we got him back. [Laughter] Now, that's your tax money being wasted. Now, neighborhood schools. It is terrible to bus tiny little children across town. It is particularly terrible to take poor, tiny little children and wait until the first grade and bus them across town to Mars where the children know their numbers, know their letters, have had every advantage; the end of the first day, that little child wants out. I close on this: You've got to have world-class teachers, world-class books. If you ever got close to how textbooks were selected, you wouldn't want to go back the second day. I don't have time to tell you the stories. [Laughter] Ms. Simpson. No, you don't. [Laughter] Mr. Perot. Finally. If we don't fix this, you're right, we can't have the industries of tomorrow unless we have the best educated work force. And here, for the disadvantaged children, you've got to have early childhood development, the cheapest money you'll ever spend. The first contact should be with the mother when she's pregnant. That little child needs to be loved and hugged and nurtured and made to feel special, like you children were. They learn to think well or poorly of themselves in the first 18 months. Ms. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Perot. Mr. Perot. Within the first few years, they either learn how to learn or don't learn how to learn. If they don't, they wind up in prison, and it costs more to keep them in prison than it does to send them to Harvard. I rest my case. Ms. Simpson. Thank you. President Bush, you wanted to add something. President Bush. I just had a word of clarification because of something Governor Clinton said. My school choice program, "GI bill" for kids, does not take public money and give it to private schools. It does what the GI bill itself did when I came out of World War II. It takes public money and gives it to families or individuals to choose the school they want. Where it's been done, those schools, like in Rochester, those schools that weren't chosen find that they then compete and do better. So I think it's worth a shot. We've got a pilot program. It ought to be tried: school choice, public, private, or religious, not to the schools, but to -- 46 percent of the teachers in Chicago, public schoolteachers, send their kids to private school. Now, I think we ought to try to help families and see if it will do what I think, make all schools better. Governor Clinton. I just want to mention if I could -- -- Ms. Simpson. Very briefly. Governor Clinton. Very briefly. Involving the parents in the preschool education of their kids, even if they're poor and uneducated, can make a huge difference. We have a big program in my State that teaches mothers or fathers to teach their kids to get ready for school. It's the most successful thing we've ever done. Just a fact clarification real quickly. We do not spend a higher percentage of our income on public education than every other country. There are nine countries that spend more than we do on public education. We spend more on education because we spend so much more on colleges. But if you look at public education alone, and you take into account that we have more racial diversity and more poverty, it makes a big difference. There are great public schools where there are public school choice, accountability, and brilliant principals. I'll just mention one, the Beasley Academic Center in Chicago. I commend it to anybody. It's as good as any private school in the country. Ms. Simpson. We have very little time left, and it occurs to me that we have talked all this time and there has not been one question about some of the racial tensions and ethnic tensions in America. Is there anyone in this audience that would like to pose a question to the candidates on this? Yes? Women or Minority Presidential Candidates Q. What I'd like to know, and this is to any of the three of you, is aside from the recent accomplishments of your party, aside from those accomplishments in racial representation and without citing any of your current appointments or successful elections, when do you estimate your party will both nominate and elect an Afro-American and female ticket to the Presidency of the United States? Ms. Simpson. Governor Clinton, why don't you answer that first. Governor Clinton. Well, I don't have any idea, but I hope it will happen sometime in my lifetime. Q. I do, too. Governor Clinton. I believe that this country is electing more and more African-Americans and Latinos and Asian-Americans who are representing districts that are themselves not necessarily of a majority of their race. The American people are beginning to vote across racial lines, and I hope it will happen more and more. More and more women are being elected. Look at all these women Senate candidates we have here. You know, according to my mother and my wife and my daughter, this world would be a lot better place if women were running it most of the time. I do think there are special experiences and judgments and backgrounds and understandings that women bring to this process, by the way. This lady said here, how have you been affected by the economy? I mean, women know what it's like to be paid an unequal amount for equal work; they know what's it like not to have flexible working hours; they know what it's like not to have family leave or child care. So I think it would be a good thing for America if it happened, and I think it will happen in my lifetime. Ms. Simpson. Okay. I'm sorry we have just a little bit of time left. Let's try to get responses from each of them. President Bush or Mr. Perot? President Bush. I think if Barbara Bush were running this year she'd be elected. [Laughter] But it's too late. You don't want us to mention appointees but when you see the quality of people in our administration, see how Colin Powell performed -- I say administration, he's in the military. Q. I said when's your guess? President Bush. You weren't impressed with the fact that he performed -- -- Q. Excuse me, I'm extremely impressed with that. President Bush. Yes, but wouldn't that suggest to the American people then here's a quality person, if he decided that he could automatically -- -- Q. Sure. I just wanted to know -- -- President Bush. -- -- get the nomination of either party? Huh? Q. I'm totally impressed with that. I just wanted to know is when is your guess of when. President Bush. Oh, I see. You mean time? Q. Yeah. President Bush. I don't know. Starting after 4 years. [Laughter] No, I think you'll see -- -- Ms. Simpson. Mr. Perot? President Bush. I think you'll see more minority candidates and women candidates coming forward. Ms. Simpson. Thank you. President Bush. This is supposed to be the year of the women in the Senate. Let's see how they do. I hope a lot of them lose. Ms. Simpson. Mr. Perot, I don't want to cut you up any more, but we only have a minute left. Mr. Perot. I have a fearless forecast. Unless he just won't do it, Colin Powell will be on somebody's ticket 4 years from now. Right? Right? You wanted -- that's it. Four years. Ms. Simpson. How about a woman? Mr. Perot. Now, if he won't be, General Waller would be a -- you say, why do you keep picking military people? These are people that I just happened to know and have a high regard for. I'm sure there are hundreds of others. President Bush. How about Dr. Lou Sullivan? Mr. Perot. Absolutely. President Bush. Yeah, good man. Mr. Perot. Absolutely. Ms. Simpson. What about a woman? Mr. Perot. Oh, oh. President Bush. My candidate's right back there. Mr. Perot. I can think of many. Ms. Simpson. Many? Mr. Perot. Absolutely. Ms. Simpson. When? Mr. Perot. How about Sandra Day O'Connor as an example? Dr. Bernadine Healy. Ms. Simpson. Good. Mr. Perot. National Institutes of Health. All right, I'll yield the floor. Name some more. President Bush. Good Republicans. [Laughter] Ms. Simpson. Thank you. I want to apologize to our audience because there were 209 people here, and there were 209 questions. We only got to a fraction of them, and I'm sorry to those of you that didn't get to ask your questions, but we must move to the conclusion of the program. It is time now for the 2-minute closing statements. By prior agreement, President Bush will go first. Closing Statements President Bush. May I ask for an exception because I think we owe Carole Simpson a -- anybody who can stand in between these three characters here and get the job done -- we owe her a round of applause. [Applause] Just don't take it out of my time. Ms. Simpson. That's right. President Bush. I feel strongly about it, but I don't want it to come out of my time. Ms. Simpson. That's right. [Laughter] President Bush. No, but let me just say to the American people: In 2 1/2 weeks, we're going to choose who should sit in this Oval Office, who to lead the economic recovery, who to be the leader of the free world, who to get the deficit down. Three ways to do that: one is to raise taxes; one is to reduce spending, controlling that mandatory spending; another one is to invest and save and to stimulate growth. I do not want to raise taxes. I differ with the two here on that. I'm just not going to do that. I do believe that we need to control mandatory spending. I think we need to invest and save more. I believe that we need to educate better and retrain better. I believe that we need to export more, so I'll keep working for export agreements where we can sell more abroad. And I believe that we must strengthen the family. We've got to strengthen the family. Now, let me pose this question to America: If in the next 5 minutes a television announcer came on and said, there is a major international crisis, there is a major threat to the world, or in this country a major threat, my question is, if you were appointed to name one of the three of us, who would you choose? Who has the perseverance, the character, the integrity, the maturity to get the job done? I hope I'm that person. Thank you very, very much. Ms. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. President. And now a closing statement from Mr. Perot. Mr. Perot. If the American people want to do it and not talk about it, then I'm one person they ought to consider. If they just want to keep slow dancing and talk about it and not do it, I'm not your man. I am results oriented. I am action oriented. I've built my businesses getting things done in 3 months that my competitors took 18 months to do. Everybody says, you can't do that with Congress. Sure you can do that with Congress. Congress, they're all good people. They're all patriots. But you've got to link arms and work with them. Sure, you'll have arguments. Sure, you'll have fights. We have them all day, every day. But we get the job done. Now, I have to come back in my close to one thing, because I am passionate about education. I was talking about early childhood education for disadvantaged little children. Let me tell you one specific pilot program where children who don't have a chance go to this program when they're 3. Now, we're going back to when the mother is pregnant, and they'll start right after they're born, starting when they're 3 and going to this school until they're 9, and then going into the public school in the fourth grade -- 90 percent are on the honor roll. Now, that will change America. Those children will all go to college. They will live the American dream. I beg the American people, anytime they think about reforming education, to take this piece of society that doesn't have a chance, and take these little pieces of clay that can be shaped and molded and give them the same love and nurture and affection and support you give your children. Teach them that they're unique and that they're precious and there's only one person in the world like them, and you will see this Nation bloom. We will have so many people who are qualified for the top job that it will be terrific. Now, finally, if you can't pay the bills, you're dead in the water. We have got to put our Nation back to work. Now, if you don't want to really do that, I'm not your man. I'd go crazy sitting up there slow dancing that one. In other words, unless we're going to do it, then pick somebody who likes to talk about it. Now, just remember, when you think about me, I didn't create this mess. I've been paying taxes just like you. And Lord knows, I've paid my share, over $1 billion in taxes. And for a guy that started out with everything he owned in the trunk of his car, that ain't bad. Ms. Simpson. I'm sorry, Mr. Perot. Once again -- -- Mr. Perot. But it's in your hands. I wish you well. I'll see you tomorrow night on NBC, 10:30 p.m., 11 p.m., eastern. [Laughter] Ms. Simpson. And finally, last but not least, Governor Clinton. Governor Clinton. Thank you, Carole, and thank you, ladies and gentleman. Since I suggested this format, I hope it's been good for all of you. I've really tried to be faithful to your request that we answer the questions specifically and pointedly. I thought I owed that to you. And I respect you for being here, and for the impact you've had on making this a more positive experience. These problems are not easy. They're not going to be solved overnight. But I want you to think about just two or three things. First of all, the people of my State have let me be their Governor for 12 years because I made commitments to two things, more jobs and better schools. Our schools are now better. Our children get off to a better start, from preschool programs and smaller classes in the early grades. We have one of the most aggressive adult education programs in the country. We talked about that. This year, my State ranks first in the country in job growth, fourth in manufacturing job growth, fourth in income growth, fourth in the decline of poverty. I'm proud of that. It happened because I could work with people, Republicans and Democrats. That's why we've had 24 retired generals and admirals, hundreds of business people, many of them Republican, support this campaign. You have to decide whether you want to change or not. We do not need 4 more years of an economic theory that doesn't work. We've had 12 years of trickle-down economics. It's time to put the American people first, to invest and grow this economy. I'm the only person here who's ever balanced a government budget, and I've presented 12 of them and cut spending repeatedly. But you cannot just get there by balancing the budget. We've got to grow the economy by putting people first, real people like you. I got into this race because I did not want my child to grow up to be part of the first generation of Americans to do worse than their parents. We're better than that. We can do better than that. I want to make America as great as it can be, and I ask for your help in doing it. Thank you very much. Ms. Simpson. Thank you, Governor Clinton. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes the debate, sponsored by the Bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates. I'd like to thank our audience of 209 uncommitted voters who may leave this evening maybe being committed. And hopefully, they'll go to the polls like everyone else on November 3d and vote. We invite you to join us on the third and final Presidential debate next Monday, October 19th, from the campus of Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan. I'm Carole Simpson. Good night. Note: The debate began at 9 p.m. in Robins Center at the University of Richmond. George Bush, Presidential Debate at the University of Richmond Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/217084

203rd State of the Union Bush’s First Annual Message February 09, 1989 Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, and distinguished Members of the House and Senate, honored guests, and fellow citizens: Less than 3 weeks ago, I joined you on the West Front of this very building and, looking over the monuments to our proud past, offered you my hand in filling the next page of American history with a story of extended prosperity and continued peace. And tonight I'm back to offer you my plans as well. The hand remains extended; the sleeves are rolled up; America is waiting; and now we must produce. Together, we can build a better America. It is comforting to return to this historic Chamber. Here, 22 years ago, I first raised my hand to be sworn into public life. So, tonight I feel as if I'm returning home to friends. And I intend, in the months and years to come, to give you what friends deserve: frankness, respect, and my best judgment about ways to improve America's future. In return, I ask for an honest commitment to our common mission of progress. If we seize the opportunities on the road before us, there'll be praise enough for all. The people didn't send us here to bicker, and it's time to govern. And many Presidents have come to this Chamber in times of great crisis: war and depression, loss of national spirit. And 8 years ago, I sat in that very chair as President Reagan spoke of punishing inflation and devastatingly high interest rates and people out of work -- American confidence on the wane. And our challenge is different. We're fortunate -- a much changed landscape lies before us tonight. So, I don't propose to reverse direction. We're headed the right way, but we cannot rest. We're a people whose energy and drive have fueled our rise to greatness. And we're a forward-looking nation -- generous, yes, but ambitious, not for ourselves but for the world. Complacency is not in our character -- not before, not now, not ever. And so, tonight we must take a strong America and make it even better. We must address some very real problems. We must establish some very clear priorities. And we must make a very substantial cut in the Federal budget deficit. Some people find that agenda impossible, but I'm presenting to you tonight a realistic plan for tackling it. My plan has four broad features: attention to urgent priorities, investment in the future, an attack on the deficit, and no new taxes. This budget represents my best judgment of how we can address our priorities. There are many areas in which we would all like to spend more than I propose; I understand that. But we cannot until we get our fiscal house in order. Next year alone, thanks to economic growth, without any change in the law, the Federal Government will take in over $80 billion more than it does this year. That's right -- over $80 billion in new revenues, with no increases in taxes. And our job is to allocate those new resources wisely. We can afford to increase spending by a modest amount, but enough to invest in key priorities and still cut the deficit by almost 40 percent in 1 year. And that will allow us to meet the targets set forth in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law. But to do that, we must recognize that growth above inflation in Federal programs is not preordained, that not all spending initiatives were designed to be immortal. I make this pledge tonight: My team and I are ready to work with the Congress, to form a special leadership group, to negotiate in good faith, to work day and night -- if that's what it takes -- to meet the budget targets and to produce a budget on time. We cannot settle for business as usual. Government by continuing resolution, or government by crisis, will not do. And I ask the Congress tonight to approve several measures which will make budgeting more sensible. We could save time and improve efficiency by enacting 2-year budgets. Forty-three Governors have the line-item veto. Presidents should have it, too. And at the very least, when a President proposes to rescind Federal spending, the Congress should be required to vote on that proposal instead of killing it by inaction. And I ask the Congress to honor the public's wishes by passing a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. Such an amendment, once phased in, will discipline both the Congress and the executive branch. Several principles describe the kind of America I hope to build with your help in the years ahead. We will not have the luxury of taking the easy, spendthrift approach to solving problems because higher spending and higher taxes put economic growth at risk. Economic growth provides jobs and hope. Economic growth enables us to pay for social programs. Economic growth enhances the security of the Nation, and low tax rates create economic growth. I believe in giving Americans greater freedom and greater choice. And I will work for choice for American families, whether in the housing in which they live, the schools to which they send their children, or the child care they select for their young. You see, I believe that we have an obligation to those in need, but that government should not be the provider of first resort for things that the private sector can produce better. I believe in a society that is free from discrimination and bigotry of any kind. And I will work to knock down the barriers left by past discrimination and to build a more tolerant society that will stop such barriers from ever being built again. I believe that family and faith represent the moral compass of the Nation. And I'll work to make them strong, for as Benjamin Franklin said: "If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, can a great nation rise without His aid?" And I believe in giving people the power to make their own lives better through growth and opportunity. And together, let's put power in the hands of people. Three weeks ago, we celebrated the bicentennial inaugural, the 200th anniversary of the first Presidency. And if you look back, one thing is so striking about the way the Founding Fathers looked at America. They didn't talk about themselves. They talked about posterity. They talked about the future. And we, too, must think in terms bigger than ourselves. We must take actions today that will ensure a better tomorrow. We must extend American leadership in technology, increase long-term investment, improve our educational system, and boost productivity. These are the keys to building a better future, and here are some of my recommendations: I propose almost $2.2 billion for the National Science Foundation to promote basic research and keep us on track to double its budget by 1993. I propose to make permanent the tax credit for research and development. I've asked Vice President Quayle to chair a new Task Force on Competitiveness. And I request funding for NASA [National Aeronautics and Space Administration] and a strong space program, an increase of almost $2.4 billion over the current fiscal year. We must have a manned space station; a vigorous, safe space shuttle program; and more commercial development in space. The space program should always go "full throttle up." And that's not just our ambition; it's our destiny. I propose that we cut the maximum tax rate on capital gains to increase long-term investment. History on this is clear -- this will increase revenues, help savings, and create new jobs. We won't be competitive if we leave whole sectors of America behind. This is the year we should finally enact urban enterprise zones and bring hope to the inner cities. But the most important competitiveness program of all is one which improves education in America. When some of our students actually have trouble locating America on a map of the world, it is time for us to map a new approach to education. We must reward excellence and cut through bureaucracy. We must help schools that need help the most. We must give choice to parents, students, teachers, and principals; and we must hold all concerned accountable. In education, we cannot tolerate mediocrity. I want to cut that dropout rate and make America a more literate nation, because what it really comes down to is this: The longer our graduation lines are today, the shorter our unemployment lines will be tomorrow. So, tonight I'm proposing the following initiatives: the beginning of a $500 million program to reward America's best schools, merit schools; the creation of special Presidential awards for the best teachers in every State, because excellence should be rewarded; the establishment of a new program of National Science Scholars, one each year for every Member of the House and Senate, to give this generation of students a special incentive to excel in science and mathematics; the expanded use of magnet schools, which give families and students greater choice; and a new program to encourage alternative certification, which will let talented people from all fields teach in our classrooms. I've said I'd like to be the "Education President." And tonight, I'd ask you to join me by becoming the "Education Congress." Just last week, as I settled into this new office, I received a letter from a mother in Pennsylvania who had been struck by my message in the Inaugural Address. "Not 12 hours before," she wrote, "my husband and I received word that our son was addicted to cocaine. He had the world at his feet. Bright, gifted, personable -- he could have done anything with his life. And now he has chosen cocaine." "And please," she wrote, "find a way to curb the supply of cocaine. Get tough with the pushers. Our son needs your help." My friends, that voice crying out for help could be the voice of your own neighbor, your own friend, your own son. Over 23 million Americans used illegal drugs last year, at a staggering cost to our nation's well-being. Let this be recorded as the time when America rose up and said no to drugs. The scourge of drugs must be stopped. And I am asking tonight for an increase of almost a billion dollars in budget outlays to escalate the war against drugs. The war must be waged on all fronts. Our new drug czar, Bill Bennett, and I will be shoulder to shoulder in the executive branch leading the charge. Some money will be used to expand treatment to the poor and to young mothers. This will offer the helping hand to the many innocent victims of drugs, like the thousands of babies born addicted or with AIDS because of the mother's addiction. Some will be used to cut the waiting time for treatment. Some money will be devoted to those urban schools where the emergency is now the worst. And much of it will be used to protect our borders, with help from the Coast Guard and the Customs Service, the Departments of State and Justice, and, yes, the U.S. military. I mean to get tough on the drug criminals. And let me be clear: This President will back up those who put their lives on the line every single day -- our local police officers. My budget asks for beefed-up prosecution, for a new attack on organized crime, and for enforcement of tough sentences -- and for the worst kingpins, that means the death penalty. I also want to make sure that when a drug dealer is convicted there's a cell waiting for him. And he should not go free because prisons are too full. And so, let the word go out: If you're caught and convicted, you will do time. But for all we do in law enforcement, in interdiction and treatment, we will never win this war on drugs unless we stop the demand for drugs. So, some of this increase will be used to educate the young about the dangers of drugs. We must involve the parents. We must involve the teachers. We must involve the communities. And, my friends, we must involve ourselves, each and every one of us in this concern. One problem related to drug use demands our urgent attention and our continuing compassion, and that is the terrible tragedy of AIDS. I'm asking for $1.6 billion for education to prevent the disease and for research to find a cure. If we're to protect our future, we need a new attitude about the environment. We must protect the air we breathe. I will send to you shortly legislation for a new, more effective Clean Air Act. It will include a plan to reduce by date certain the emissions which cause acid rain, because the time for study alone has passed, and the time for action is now. We must make use of clean coal. My budget contains full funding, on schedule, for the clean coal technology agreement that we've made with Canada. We've made that agreement with Canada, and we intend to honor that agreement. We must not neglect our parks. So, I'm asking to fund new acquisitions under the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We must protect our oceans. And I support new penalties against those who would dump medical waste and other trash into our oceans. The age of the needle on the beaches must end. And in some cases, the gulfs and oceans off our shores hold the promise of oil and gas reserves which can make our nation more secure and less dependent on foreign oil. And when those with the most promise can be tapped safely, as with much of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, we should proceed. But we must use caution; we must respect the environment. And so, tonight I'm calling for the indefinite postponement of three lease sales which have raised troubling questions, two off the coast of California and one which could threaten the Everglades in Florida. Action on these three lease sales will await the conclusion of a special task force set up to measure the potential for environmental damage. I'm directing the Attorney General and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to use every tool at their disposal to speed and toughen the enforcement of our laws against toxic-waste dumpers. I want faster cleanups and tougher enforcement of penalties against polluters. In addition to caring for our future, we must care for those around us. A decent society shows compassion for the young, the elderly, the vulnerable, and the poor. Our first obligation is to the most vulnerable -- infants, poor mothers, children living in poverty -- and my proposed budget recognizes this. I ask for full funding of Medicaid, an increase of over $3 billion, and an expansion of the program to include coverage of pregnant women who are near the poverty line. I believe we should help working families cope with the burden of child care. Our help should be aimed at those who need it most: low-income families with young children. I support a new child care tax credit that will aim our efforts at exactly those families, without discriminating against mothers who choose to stay at home. Now, I know there are competing proposals. But remember this: The overwhelming majority of all preschool child care is now provided by relatives and neighbors and churches and community groups. Families who choose these options should remain eligible for help. Parents should have choice. And for those children who are unwanted or abused or whose parents are deceased, we should encourage adoption. I propose to reenact the tax deduction for adoption expenses and to double it to $3,000. Let's make it easier for these kids to have parents who love them. We have a moral contract with our senior citizens. And in this budget, Social Security is fully funded, including a full cost-of-living adjustment. We must honor our contract. We must care about those in the shadow of life, and I, like many Americans, am deeply troubled by the plight of the homeless. The causes of homelessness are many; the history is long. But the moral imperative to act is clear. Thanks to the deep well of generosity in this great land, many organizations already contribute, but we in government cannot stand on the sidelines. In my budget, I ask for greater support for emergency food and shelter, for health services and measures to prevent substance abuse, and for clinics for the mentally ill. And I propose a new initiative involving the full range of government agencies. We must confront this national shame. There's another issue that I've decided to mention here tonight. I've long believed that the people of Puerto Rico should have the right to determine their own political future. Personally, I strongly favor statehood. But I urge the Congress to take the necessary steps to allow the people to decide in a referendum. Certain problems, the result of decades of unwise practices, threaten the health and security of our people. Left unattended, they will only get worse. But we can act now to put them behind us. Earlier this week, I announced my support for a plan to restore the financial and moral integrity of our savings system. I ask Congress to enact our reform proposals within 45 days. We must not let this situation fester. We owe it to the savers in this country to solve this problem. Certainly, the savings of Americans must remain secure. Let me be clear: Insured depositors will continue to be fully protected, but any plan to refinance the system must be accompanied by major reform. Our proposals will prevent such a crisis from recurring. The best answer is to make sure that a mess like this will never happen again. The majority of thrifts in communities across the Nation have been honest. They've played a major role in helping families achieve the dream of home ownership. But make no mistake, those who are corrupt, those who break the law, must be kicked out of the business; and they should go to jail. We face a massive task in cleaning up the waste left from decades of environmental neglect at America's nuclear weapons plants. Clearly, we must modernize these plants and operate them safely. That's not at issue; our national security depends on it. But beyond that, we must clean up the old mess that's been left behind. And I propose in this budget to more than double our current effort to do so. This will allow us to identify the exact nature of the various problems so we can clean them up, and clean them up we will. We've been fortunate during these past 8 years. America is a stronger nation than it was in 1980. Morale in our Armed Forces has been restored; our resolve has been shown. Our readiness has been improved, and we are at peace. There can no longer be any doubt that peace has been made more secure through strength. And when America is stronger, the world is safer. Most people don't realize that after the successful restoration of our strength, the Pentagon budget has actually been reduced in real terms for each of the last 4 years. We cannot tolerate continued real reduction in defense. In light of the compelling need to reduce the deficit, however, I support a 1-year freeze in the military budget, something I proposed last fall in my flexible freeze plan. And this freeze will apply for only 1 year, and after that, increases above inflation will be required. I will not sacrifice American preparedness, and I will not compromise American strength. I should be clear on the conditions attached to my recommendation for the coming year: The savings must be allocated to those priorities for investing in our future that I've spoken about tonight. This defense freeze must be a part of a comprehensive budget agreement which meets the targets spelled out in Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law without raising taxes and which incorporates reforms in the budget process. I've directed the National Security Council to review our national security and defense policies and report back to me within 90 days to ensure that our capabilities and resources meet our commitments and strategies. I'm also charging the Department of Defense with the task of developing a plan to improve the defense procurement process and management of the Pentagon, one which will fully implement the Packard commission report. Many of these changes can only be made with the participation of the Congress, and so, I ask for your help. We need fewer regulations. We need less bureaucracy. We need multiyear procurement and 2-year budgeting. And frankly -- and don't take this wrong -- we need less congressional micromanagement of our nation's military policy. I detect a slight division on that question, but nevertheless -- [laughter]. Securing a more peaceful world is perhaps the most important priority I'd like to address tonight. You know, we meet at a time of extraordinary hope. Never before in this century have our values of freedom, democracy, and economic opportunity been such a powerful and intellectual force around the globe. Never before has our leadership been so crucial, because while America has its eyes on the future, the world has its eyes on America. And it's a time of great change in the world, and especially in the Soviet Union. Prudence and common sense dictate that we try to understand the full meaning of the change going on there, review our policies, and then proceed with caution. But I've personally assured General Secretary Gorbachev that at the conclusion of such a review we will be ready to move forward. We will not miss any opportunity to work for peace. The fundamental facts remain that the Soviets retain a very powerful military machine in the service of objectives which are still too often in conflict with ours. So, let us take the new openness seriously, but let's also be realistic. And let's always be strong. There are some pressing issues we must address. I will vigorously pursue the Strategic Defense Initiative. The spread, and even use, of sophisticated weaponry threatens global security as never before. Chemical weapons must be banned from the face of the Earth, never to be used again. And look, this won't be easy. Verification -- extraordinarily difficult, but civilization and human decency demand that we try. And the spread of nuclear weapons must be stopped. And I'll work to strengthen the hand of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Our diplomacy must work every day against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. And around the globe, we must continue to be freedom's best friend. And we must stand firm for self-determination and democracy in Central America, including in Nicaragua. It is my strongly held conviction that when people are given the chance they inevitably will choose a free press, freedom of worship, and certifiably free and fair elections. We must strengthen the alliance of the industrial democracies, as solid a force for peace as the world has ever known. And this is an alliance forged by the power of our ideals, not the pettiness of our differences. So, let's lift our sights to rise above fighting about beef hormones, to building a better future, to move from protectionism to progress. I've asked the Secretary of State to visit Europe next week and to consult with our allies on the wide range of challenges and opportunities we face together, including East-West relations. And I look forward to meeting with our NATO partners in the near future. And I, too, shall begin a trip shortly to the far reaches of the Pacific Basin, where the winds of democracy are creating new hope and the power of free markets is unleashing a new force. When I served as our representative in China 14 or 15 years ago, few would have predicted the scope of the changes we've witnessed since then. But in preparing for this trip, I was struck by something I came across from a Chinese writer. He was speaking of his country, decades ago, but his words speak to each of us in America tonight. "Today," he said, "we're afraid of the simple words like `goodness' and `mercy' and `kindness."' My friends, if we're to succeed as a nation, we must rediscover those words. In just 3 days, we mark the birthday of Abraham Lincoln, the man who saved our Union and gave new meaning to the word "opportunity." Lincoln once said: "I hold that while man exists, it is his duty to improve not only his own condition but to assist in ameliorating that of mankind." It is this broader mission to which I call all Americans, because the definition of a successful life must include serving others. And to the young people of America, who sometimes feel left out, I ask you tonight to give us the benefit of your talent and energy through a new program called YES, for Youth Entering Service to America. To those men and women in business, remember the ultimate end of your work: to make a better product, to create better lives. I ask you to plan for the longer term and avoid that temptation of quick and easy paper profits. To the brave men and women who wear the uniform of the United States of America, thank you. Your calling is a high one: to be the defenders of freedom and the guarantors of liberty. And I want you to know that this nation is grateful for your service. To the farmers of America, we appreciate the bounty you provide. We will work with you to open foreign markets to American agricultural products. And to the parents of America, I ask you to get involved in your child's schooling. Check on the homework, go to the school, meet the teachers, care about what is happening there. It's not only your child's future on the line, it's America's. To kids in our cities, don't give up hope. Say no to drugs; stay in school. And, yes, "Keep hope alive." To those 37 million Americans with some form of disability, you belong in the economic mainstream. We need your talents in America's work force. Disabled Americans must become full partners in America's opportunity society. To the families of America watching tonight in your living rooms, hold fast to your dreams because ultimately America's future rests in your hands. And to my friends in this Chamber, I ask your cooperation to keep America growing while cutting the deficit. That's only fair to those who now have no vote: the generations to come. Let them look back and say that we had the foresight to understand that a time of peace and prosperity is not the time to rest but a time to press forward, a time to invest in the future. And let all Americans remember that no problem of human making is too great to be overcome by human ingenuity, human energy, and the untiring hope of the human spirit. I believe this. I would not have asked to be your President if I didn't. And tomorrow the debate on the plan I've put forward begins, and I ask the Congress to come forward with your own proposals. Let's not question each other's motives. Let's debate, let's negotiate; but let us solve the problem. Recalling anniversaries may not be my specialty in speeches -- [laughter] -- but tonight is one of some note. On February 9th, 1941, just 48 years ago tonight, Sir Winston Churchill took to the airwaves during Britain's hour of peril. He'd received from President Roosevelt a hand-carried letter quoting Longfellow's famous poem: "Sail on, O Ship of State! Sail on, O Union, strong and great! Humanity with all its fears, With all the hopes of future years, Is hanging breathless on thy fate!" And Churchill responded on this night by radio broadcast to a nation at war, but he directed his words to Franklin Roosevelt. "We shall not fail or falter," he said. "We shall not weaken or tire. Give us the tools, and we will finish the job." Tonight, almost half a century later, our peril may be less immediate, but the need for perseverance and clear-sighted fortitude is just as great. Now, as then, there are those who say it can't be done. There are voices who say that America's best days have passed, that we're bound by constraints, threatened by problems, surrounded by troubles which limit our ability to hope. Well, tonight I remain full of hope. We Americans have only begun on our mission of goodness and greatness. And to those timid souls, I repeat the plea: "Give us the tools, and we will do the job." Thank you. God bless you, and God bless America. Source: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/address-administration-goals-before-joint-session-congress

FRIDAY, JANUARY 20, 1989 Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. President, Vice President Quayle, Senator Mitchell, Speaker Wright, Senator Dole, Congressman Michel, and fellow citizens, neighbors, and friends: There is a man here who has earned a lasting place in our hearts and in our history. President Reagan, on behalf of our Nation, I thank you for the wonderful things that you have done for America. I have just repeated word for word the oath taken by George Washington 200 years ago, and the Bible on which I placed my hand is the Bible on which he placed his. It is right that the memory of Washington be with us today, not only because this is our Bicentennial Inauguration, but because Washington remains the Father of our Country. And he would, I think, be gladdened by this day; for today is the concrete expression of a stunning fact: our continuity these 200 years since our government began. We meet on democracy's front porch, a good place to talk as neighbors and as friends. For this is a day when our nation is made whole, when our differences, for a moment, are suspended. And my first act as President is a prayer. I ask you to bow your heads: Heavenly Father, we bow our heads and thank You for Your love. Accept our thanks for the peace that yields this day and the shared faith that makes its continuance likely. Make us strong to do Your work, willing to heed and hear Your will, and write on our hearts these words: "Use power to help people." For we are given power not to advance our own purposes, nor to make a great show in the world, nor a name. There is but one just use of power, and it is to serve people. Help us to remember it, Lord. Amen. I come before you and assume the Presidency at a moment rich with promise. We live in a peaceful, prosperous time, but we can make it better. For a new breeze is blowing, and a world refreshed by freedom seems reborn; for in man's heart, if not in fact, the day of the dictator is over. The totalitarian era is passing, its old ideas blown away like leaves from an ancient, lifeless tree. A new breeze is blowing, and a nation refreshed by freedom stands ready to push on. There is new ground to be broken, and new action to be taken. There are times when the future seems thick as a fog; you sit and wait, hoping the mists will lift and reveal the right path. But this is a time when the future seems a door you can walk right through into a room called tomorrow. Great nations of the world are moving toward democracy through the door to freedom. Men and women of the world move toward free markets through the door to prosperity. The people of the world agitate for free expression and free thought through the door to the moral and intellectual satisfactions that only liberty allows. We know what works: Freedom works. We know what's right: Freedom is right. We know how to secure a more just and prosperous life for man on Earth: through free markets, free speech, free elections, and the exercise of free will unhampered by the state. For the first time in this century, for the first time in perhaps all history, man does not have to invent a system by which to live. We don't have to talk late into the night about which form of government is better. We don't have to wrest justice from the kings. We only have to summon it from within ourselves. We must act on what we know. I take as my guide the hope of a saint: In crucial things, unity; in important things, diversity; in all things, generosity. America today is a proud, free nation, decent and civil, a place we cannot help but love. We know in our hearts, not loudly and proudly, but as a simple fact, that this country has meaning beyond what we see, and that our strength is a force for good. But have we changed as a nation even in our time? Are we enthralled with material things, less appreciative of the nobility of work and sacrifice? My friends, we are not the sum of our possessions. They are not the measure of our lives. In our hearts we know what matters. We cannot hope only to leave our children a bigger car, a bigger bank account. We must hope to give them a sense of what it means to be a loyal friend, a loving parent, a citizen who leaves his home, his neighborhood and town better than he found it. What do we want the men and women who work with us to say when we are no longer there? That we were more driven to succeed than anyone around us? Or that we stopped to ask if a sick child had gotten better, and stayed a moment there to trade a word of friendship? No President, no government, can teach us to remember what is best in what we are. But if the man you have chosen to lead this government can help make a difference; if he can celebrate the quieter, deeper successes that are made not of gold and silk, but of better hearts and finer souls; if he can do these things, then he must. America is never wholly herself unless she is engaged in high moral principle. We as a people have such a purpose today. It is to make kinder the face of the Nation and gentler the face of the world. My friends, we have work to do. There are the homeless, lost and roaming. There are the children who have nothing, no love, no normalcy. There are those who cannot free themselves of enslavement to whatever addiction--drugs, welfare, the demoralization that rules the slums. There is crime to be conquered, the rough crime of the streets. There are young women to be helped who are about to become mothers of children they can't care for and might not love. They need our care, our guidance, and our education, though we bless them for choosing life. The old solution, the old way, was to think that public money alone could end these problems. But we have learned that is not so. And in any case, our funds are low. We have a deficit to bring down. We have more will than wallet; but will is what we need. We will make the hard choices, looking at what we have and perhaps allocating it differently, making our decisions based on honest need and prudent safety. And then we will do the wisest thing of all: We will turn to the only resource we have that in times of need always grows--the goodness and the courage of the American people. I am speaking of a new engagement in the lives of others, a new activism, hands-on and involved, that gets the job done. We must bring in the generations, harnessing the unused talent of the elderly and the unfocused energy of the young. For not only leadership is passed from generation to generation, but so is stewardship. And the generation born after the Second World War has come of age. I have spoken of a thousand points of light, of all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the Nation, doing good. We will work hand in hand, encouraging, sometimes leading, sometimes being led, rewarding. We will work on this in the White House, in the Cabinet agencies. I will go to the people and the programs that are the brighter points of light, and I will ask every member of my government to become involved. The old ideas are new again because they are not old, they are timeless: duty, sacrifice, commitment, and a patriotism that finds its expression in taking part and pitching in. We need a new engagement, too, between the Executive and the Congress. The challenges before us will be thrashed out with the House and the Senate. We must bring the Federal budget into balance. And we must ensure that America stands before the world united, strong, at peace, and fiscally sound. But, of course, things may be difficult. We need compromise; we have had dissension. We need harmony; we have had a chorus of discordant voices. For Congress, too, has changed in our time. There has grown a certain divisiveness. We have seen the hard looks and heard the statements in which not each other's ideas are challenged, but each other's motives. And our great parties have too often been far apart and untrusting of each other. It has been this way since Vietnam. That war cleaves us still. But, friends, that war began in earnest a quarter of a century ago; and surely the statute of limitations has been reached. This is a fact: The final lesson of Vietnam is that no great nation can long afford to be sundered by a memory. A new breeze is blowing, and the old bipartisanship must be made new again. To my friends--and yes, I do mean friends--in the loyal opposition--and yes, I mean loyal: I put out my hand. I am putting out my hand to you, Mr. Speaker. I am putting out my hand to you Mr. Majority Leader. For this is the thing: This is the age of the offered hand. We can't turn back clocks, and I don't want to. But when our fathers were young, Mr. Speaker, our differences ended at the water's edge. And we don't wish to turn back time, but when our mothers were young, Mr. Majority Leader, the Congress and the Executive were capable of working together to produce a budget on which this nation could live. Let us negotiate soon and hard. But in the end, let us produce. The American people await action. They didn't send us here to bicker. They ask us to rise above the merely partisan. "In crucial things, unity"--and this, my friends, is crucial. To the world, too, we offer new engagement and a renewed vow: We will stay strong to protect the peace. The "offered hand" is a reluctant fist; but once made, strong, and can be used with great effect. There are today Americans who are held against their will in foreign lands, and Americans who are unaccounted for. Assistance can be shown here, and will be long remembered. Good will begets good will. Good faith can be a spiral that endlessly moves on. Great nations like great men must keep their word. When America says something, America means it, whether a treaty or an agreement or a vow made on marble steps. We will always try to speak clearly, for candor is a compliment, but subtlety, too, is good and has its place. While keeping our alliances and friendships around the world strong, ever strong, we will continue the new closeness with the Soviet Union, consistent both with our security and with progress. One might say that our new relationship in part reflects the triumph of hope and strength over experience. But hope is good, and so are strength and vigilance. Here today are tens of thousands of our citizens who feel the understandable satisfaction of those who have taken part in democracy and seen their hopes fulfilled. But my thoughts have been turning the past few days to those who would be watching at home to an older fellow who will throw a salute by himself when the flag goes by, and the women who will tell her sons the words of the battle hymns. I don't mean this to be sentimental. I mean that on days like this, we remember that we are all part of a continuum, inescapably connected by the ties that bind. Our children are watching in schools throughout our great land. And to them I say, thank you for watching democracy's big day. For democracy belongs to us all, and freedom is like a beautiful kite that can go higher and higher with the breeze. And to all I say: No matter what your circumstances or where you are, you are part of this day, you are part of the life of our great nation. A President is neither prince nor pope, and I don't seek a window on men's souls. In fact, I yearn for a greater tolerance, an easy- goingness about each other's attitudes and way of life. There are few clear areas in which we as a society must rise up united and express our intolerance. The most obvious now is drugs. And when that first cocaine was smuggled in on a ship, it may as well have been a deadly bacteria, so much has it hurt the body, the soul of our country. And there is much to be done and to be said, but take my word for it: This scourge will stop. And so, there is much to do; and tomorrow the work begins. I do not mistrust the future; I do not fear what is ahead. For our problems are large, but our heart is larger. Our challenges are great, but our will is greater. And if our flaws are endless, God's love is truly boundless. Some see leadership as high drama, and the sound of trumpets calling, and sometimes it is that. But I see history as a book with many pages, and each day we fill a page with acts of hopefulness and meaning. The new breeze blows, a page turns, the story unfolds. And so today a chapter begins, a small and stately story of unity, diversity, and generosity--shared, and written, together. Thank you. God bless you and God bless the United States of America. Source: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/bush.asp

January 05, 1993 Thank you all very much. Good luck. Please be seated. Thank you, General Graves, for that very kind introduction. Barbara and I are just delighted to be here and honored that we could be joined by our able Secretary of the Army, Mike Stone; of course, the man well-known here that heads our Army, General Sullivan, General Gordon Sullivan; and Gracie Graves, General Robert Foley, General Galloway; Shawn Daniel, well-known to everybody here, been our host, in a sense; and a West Point alum who has been at my side for 4 years, over here somewhere, General Scowcroft, graduate of this great institution who served his country with such distinction. May I salute the members of the Board of Visitors. I see another I have to single out, General Galvin, who served his country with such honor. And, of course, save the best for last, the Corps of Cadets, thank you for that welcome. Let me begin with the hard part: It is difficult for a Navy person to come up to West Point after that game a month ago. Go ahead, rub it in. [Laughter] But I watched it. Amazing things can happen in sports. Look at the Oilers, my other team that took it on the chin the other day. [Laughter] But I guess the moral of all of this is that losing is never easy. Trust me, I know something about that. [Laughter] But if you have to lose, that's the way to do it: Fight with all you have. Give it your best shot. And win or lose, learn from it, and get on with life. I am about to get on with the rest of my life. But before I do, I want to share with you at this institution of leadership some of my thinking, both about the world you will soon be called upon to enter and the life that you have chosen. Any President has several functions. He speaks for and to the Nation. He must faithfully execute the law. And he must lead. But no function, none of the President's hats, in my view, is more important than his role as Commander in Chief. For it is as Commander in Chief that the President confronts and makes decisions that one way or another affects the lives of everyone in this country as well as many others around the world. I have had many occasions to don this most important of hats. Over the past 4 years, the men and women who proudly and bravely wear the uniforms of the U.S. armed services have been called upon to go in harm's way and have discharged their duty with honor and professionalism. I wish I could say that such demands were a thing of the past, that with the end of the cold war the calls upon the United States would diminish. I cannot. Yes, the end of the cold war, we would all concede, is a blessing. It is a time of great promise. Democratic governments have never been so numerous. What happened 2 or 3 days ago in Moscow would not have been possible in the cold war days. Thanks to historic treaties such as that START II pact just reached with Russia, the likelihood of nuclear holocaust is vastly diminished. But this does not mean that there is no specter of war, no threats to be reckoned with. And already, we see disturbing signs of what this new world could become if we are passive and aloof. We would risk the emergence of a world characterized by violence, characterized by chaos, one in which dictators and tyrants threaten their neighbors, build arsenals brimming with weapons of mass destruction, and ignore the welfare of their own men, women, and children. And we could see a horrible increase in international terrorism, with American citizens more at risk than ever before. We cannot and we need not allow this to happen. Our objective must be to exploit the unparalleled opportunity presented by the cold war's end to work toward transforming this new world into a new world order, one of governments that are democratic, tolerant, and economically free at home and committed abroad to settling inevitable differences peacefully, without the threat or use of force. Unfortunately, not everyone subscribes to these principles. We continue to see leaders bent on denying fundamental human rights and seizing territory regardless of the human cost. No, an international society, one more attuned to the enduring principles that have made this country a beacon of hope for so many for so long, will not just emerge on its own. It's got to be built. Two hundred years ago, another departing President warned of the dangers of what he described as "entangling alliances." His was the right course for a new nation at that point in history. But what was "entangling" in Washington's day is now essential. This is why, at Texas A&M a few weeks ago, I spoke of the folly of isolationism and of the importance, morally, economically, and strategically, of the United States remaining involved in world affairs. We must engage ourselves if a new world order, one more compatible with our values and congenial to our interest, is to emerge. But even more, we must lead. Leadership, well, it takes many forms. It can be political or diplomatic. It can be economic or military. It can be moral or spiritual leadership. Leadership can take any one of these forms, or it can be a combination of them. Leadership should not be confused with either unilateralism or universalism. We need not respond by ourselves to each and every outrage of violence. The fact that America can act does not mean that it must. A nation's sense of idealism need not be at odds with its interests, nor does principle displace prudence. No, the United States should not seek to be the world's policeman. There is no support abroad or at home for us to play this role, nor should there be. We would exhaust ourselves in the process, wasting precious resources needed to address those problems at home and abroad that we cannot afford to ignore. But in the wake of the cold war, in a world where we are the only remaining superpower, it is the role of the United States to marshal its moral and material resources to promote a democratic peace. It is our responsibility, it is our opportunity to lead. There is no one else. Leadership cannot be simply asserted or demanded. It must be demonstrated. Leadership requires formulating worthy goals, persuading others of their virtue, and contributing one's share of the common effort and then some. Leadership takes time. It takes patience. It takes work. Some of this work must take place here at home. Congress does have a constitutional role to play. Leadership therefore also involves working with the Congress and the American people to provide the essential domestic underpinning if U.S. military commitments are to be sustainable. This is what our administration, the Bush administration, has tried to do. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, it was the United States that galvanized the U.N. Security Council to act and then mobilized the successful coalition on the battlefield. The pattern not exactly the same but similar in Somalia: First the United States underscored the importance of alleviating the growing tragedy, and then we organized humanitarian efforts designed to bring hope, food, and peace. At times, real leadership requires a willingness to use military force. And force can be a useful backdrop to diplomacy, a complement to it, or, if need be, a temporary alternative. As Commander in Chief, I have made the difficult choice to use military force. I determined we could not allow Saddam's forces to ravage Kuwait and hold this critical region at gunpoint. I thought then, and I think now, that using military force to implement the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council was in the interest of the United States and the world community. The need to use force arose as well in the wake of the Gulf war, when we came to the aid of the peoples of both northern and southern Iraq. And more recently, as I'm sure you know, I determined that only the use of force could stem this human tragedy of Somalia. The United States should not stand by with so many lives at stake and when a limited deployment of U.S. forces, buttressed by the forces of other countries and acting under the full authority of the United Nations, could make an immediate and dramatic difference, and do so without excessive levels of risk and cost. Operations Provide Comfort and Southern Watch in Iraq and then Operation Restore Hope in Somalia all bear witness to the wisdom of selected use of force for selective purposes. Sometimes the decision not to use force, to stay our hand, I can tell you, it's just as difficult as the decision to send our soldiers into battle. The former Yugoslavia, well, it's been such a situation. There are, we all know, important humanitarian and strategic interests at stake there. But up to now it's not been clear that the application of limited amounts of force by the United States and its traditional friends and allies would have had the desired effect, given the nature and complexity of that situation. Our assessment of the situation in the former Yugoslavia could well change if and as the situation changes. The stakes could grow; the conflict could threaten to spread. Indeed, we are constantly reassessing our options and are actively consulting with others about steps that might be taken to contain the fighting, protect the humanitarian effort, and deny Serbia the fruits of aggression. Military force is never a tool to be used lightly or universally. In some circumstances it may be essential, in others counterproductive. I know that many people would like to find some formula, some easy formula to apply, to tell us with precision when and where to intervene with force. Anyone looking for scientific certitude is in for a disappointment. In the complex new world we are entering, there can be no single or simple set of fixed rules for using force. Inevitably, the question of military intervention requires judgment. Each and every case is unique. To adopt rigid criteria would guarantee mistakes involving American interests and American lives. And it would give would-be troublemakers a blueprint for determining their own actions. It could signal U.S. friends and allies that our support was not to be counted on. Similarly, we cannot always decide in advance which interests will require our using military force to protect them. The relative importance of an interest is not a guide: Military force may not be the best way of safeguarding something vital, while using force might be the best way to protect an interest that qualifies as important but less than vital. But to warn against a futile quest for a set of hard-and-fast rules to govern the use of military force is not to say there cannot be some principles to inform our decisions. Such guidelines can prove useful in sizing and, indeed, shaping our forces and in helping us to think our way through this key question. Using military force makes sense as a policy where the stakes warrant, where and when force can be effective, where no other policies are likely to prove effective, where its application can be limited in scope and time, and where the potential benefits justify the potential costs and sacrifice. Once we are satisfied that force makes sense, we must act with the maximum possible support. The United States can and should lead, but we will want to act in concert, where possible involving the United Nations or other multinational grouping. The United States can and should contribute to the common undertaking in a manner commensurate with our wealth, with our strength. But others should also contribute militarily, be it by providing combat or support forces, access to facilities or bases, or overflight rights. And similarly, others should contribute economically. It is unreasonable to expect the United States to bear the full financial burden of intervention when other nations have a stake in the outcome. A desire for international support must not become a prerequisite for acting, though. Sometimes a great power has to act alone. I made a tough decision -- I might say, on advice of our outstanding military leaders who are so well known to everybody here -- to use military force in Panama when American lives and the security of the Canal appeared to be threatened by outlaws who stole power in the face of free elections. And similarly, we moved swiftly to safeguard democracy in the Philippines. But in every case involving the use of force, it will be essential to have a clear and achievable mission, a realistic plan for accomplishing the mission, and criteria no less realistic for withdrawing U.S. forces once the mission is complete. Only if we keep these principles in mind will the potential sacrifice be one that can be explained and justified. We must never forget that using force is not some political abstraction but a real commitment of our fathers and mothers and sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, friends and neighbors. You've got to look at it in human terms. In order even to have the choice, we must have available adequate military forces tailored for a wide range of contingencies, including peacekeeping. Indeed, leading the effort toward a new world order will require a modern, capable military, in some areas necessitating more rather than less defense spending. As President, I have said that my ability to deploy force on behalf of U.S. interests abroad was made possible because past Presidents, and I would single out in particular my predecessor, Ronald Reagan, and past Secretaries of Defense sustained a strong military. Consistent with this sacred trust, I am proud to pass on to my successor, President-elect Clinton, a military second to none. We have the very best. Yet, it is essential to recognize that as important as such factors are, any military is more than simply the sum of its weapons or the state of its technology. What makes any armed force truly effective is the quality of its leadership, the quality of its training, the quality of its people. We have succeeded abroad in no small part because of our people in uniform. The men and women in our Armed Forces have demonstrated their ability to master the challenges of modern warfare. And at the same time, and whether on the battlefield of Iraq or in some tiny little village in Somalia, America's soldiers have always brought a quality of caring and kindness to their mission. Who will ever forget -- I know I won't -- those terrified Iraqi soldiers surrendering to American troops? And who will forget the way the American soldier held out his arms and said, "It's okay. You're all right now." Or in Somalia, the young marine, eyes filled with tears, holding the fragile arm of an emaciated child. There can be no doubt about it: The All Volunteer Force is one of the true success stories of modern day America. It is instructive to look at just why this is so. At its heart, a voluntary military is based upon choice -- you all know that -- the decision freely taken by young men and women to join, the decision by more mature men and women to remain. And the institution of the Armed Forces has thrived on its commitment to developing and promoting excellence. It is meritocracy in action. Race, religion, wealth, background count not. Indeed, the military offers many examples for the rest of society, showing what can be done to eradicate the scourge of drugs, to break down the barriers of racial discrimination, to offer equal opportunity to women. This is not just a result of self-selection. It also reflects the military's commitment to education and training. You know, people speak of defense conversion, the process by which the defense firms retool for civilian tasks. Well, defense conversion within the military has been going on for years. It is the constant process of training and retraining, which the military does so well, that allows individuals to keep up with the latest technology, take on more challenging assignments, and prepare for life on the outside. Out of this culture of merit and competition have emerged hundreds of thousands of highly skilled men and women brimming with real self-confidence. What they possess is a special mix of discipline, a willingness to accept direction, and the confidence, a willingness to accept responsibility. Together, discipline and confidence provide the basis for winning, for getting the job done. There is no higher calling, no more honorable choice than the one that you here today have made. To join the Armed Forces is to be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for your country and for your fellow man. What you have done, what you are doing, sends an important message, one that I fear sometimes gets lost amidst today's often materialist, self-interested culture. It is important to remember, it is important to demonstrate that there is a higher purpose to life beyond one's self. Now, I speak of family, of community, of ideals. I speak of duty, honor, country. There are many forms of contributing to this country, of public service. Yes, there is government. There is voluntarism. I love to talk about the thousand Points of Light, one American helping another. The daily tasks that require doing in our classrooms, in our hospitals, our cities, our farms, all can and do represent a form of service. In whatever form, service benefits our society, and it ennobles the giver. It is a cherished American concept, one we should continue to practice and pass on to our children. This was what I wanted to share on this occasion. You are beginning your service to country, and I am nearing the end of mine. Exactly half a century ago, in June of 1942, as General Graves mentioned, we were at war, and I was graduating from school. The speaker that day at Andover was the then-Secretary of War, Henry Stimson. And his message was one of public service, but with a twist -- on the importance of finishing one's schooling before going off to fight for one's country. I listened closely to what he had to say, but I didn't take his advice. And that day was my 18th birthday. And when the commencement ceremony ended, I went on into Boston and enlisted in the Navy as a seaman 2d class. And I never regretted it. You, too, have signed up. You, too, will never regret it. And I salute you for it. Fortunately, because of the sacrifices made in years before and still being made, you should be able to complete this phase of your education. A half century has passed since I left school to go into the service. A half century has passed since that day when Stimson spoke of the challenge of creating a new world. You will also be entering a new world, one far better than the one I came to know, a world with the potential to be far better yet. This is the challenge. This is the opportunity of your lifetimes. I envy you for it, and I wish you Godspeed. And while I'm at it, as your Commander in Chief, I hereby grant amnesty to the Corps of Cadets. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you very, very much. Good luck to all of you. Warm up here. Good luck to you guys. Thank you. Source: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-united-states-military-academy-west-point-new-york

October 11, 1992 Jim Lehrer. Good evening, and welcome to the first of three debates among the major candidates for President of the United States, sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. The candidates are independent candidate Ross Perot; Governor Bill Clinton, the Democratic nominee; and President George Bush, the Republican nominee. I am Jim Lehrer of "The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour" on PBS, and I will be the moderator for this 90-minute event, which is taking place before an audience here in the Athletic Complex on the campus of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. Three journalists will be asking questions tonight. They are John Mashek of the Boston Globe; Ann Compton of ABC News; and Sander Vanocur, a freelance journalist. We will follow a format agreed to by representatives of the Clinton and Bush campaigns. That agreement contains no restrictions on the content or subject matter of the questions. Each candidate will have up to 2 minutes for a closing statement. The order of those as well as the questioning was determined by a drawing. The first question goes to Mr. Perot. He will have 2 minutes to answer, to be followed by rebuttals of one minute each from Governor Clinton and then President Bush. Distinction Among Candidates Gentlemen, good evening. The first topic tonight is what separates each of you from the other. Mr. Perot, what do you believe tonight is the single most important separating issue of this campaign? Mr. Perot. I think the principal issue that separates me is that 5 1/2 million people came together on their own and put me on the ballot. I was not put on the ballot by either of the two parties. I was not put on the ballot by any PAC money, by any foreign lobbyist money, by any special interest money. This is a movement that came from the people. This is the way the framers of the Constitution intended our Government to be, a Government that comes from the people. Over time we have developed a Government that comes at the people, that comes from the top down, where the people are more or less treated as objects to be programmed during the campaign, with commercials and media events and fear messages and personal attacks and things of that nature. The thing that separates my candidacy and makes it unique is that this came from millions of people in 50 States all over this country who wanted a candidate that worked and belonged to nobody but them. I go into this race as their servant, and I belong to them. So this comes from the people. Mr. Lehrer. Governor Clinton, one-minute response. Governor Clinton. The most important distinction in this campaign is that I represent real hope for change: a departure from trickle-down economics, a departure from tax-and-spend economics, to invest and grow. But before I can do that I must challenge the American people to change, and they must decide. Tonight I say to the President: Mr. Bush, for 12 years you've had it your way. You've had your chance, and it didn't work. It's time to change. I want to bring that change to the American people, but we must all decide first we have the courage to change for hope and a better tomorrow. Mr. Lehrer. President Bush, one-minute response, sir. President Bush. Well, I think one thing that distinguishes is experience. I think we've dramatically changed the world. I'll talk about that a little bit later, but the changes are mind-boggling for world peace. Kids go to bed at night without the same fear of nuclear war. And change for change's sake isn't enough. We saw that message in the late seventies when we heard a lot about change. And what happened? That "misery index" went right through the roof. But my economic program, I think, is the kind of change we want. And the way we're going to get it done is we're going to have a brandnew Congress. A lot of them are thrown out because of all the scandals. I'll sit down with them, Democrats and Republicans alike, and work for my Agenda for American Renewal which represents real change. But I'd say, if you had to separate out, I think it's experience at this level. Experience Mr. Lehrer. Governor Clinton, how do you respond to the President -- you have 2 minutes -- on the question of experience? He says that is what distinguishes him from the other two of you. Governor Clinton. I believe experience counts, but it's not everything. Values, judgment, and the record that I have amassed in my State also should count for something. I've worked hard to create good jobs and to educate people. My State now ranks first in the country in job growth this year, fourth in income growth, fourth in the reduction of poverty, third in overall economic performance, according to a major news magazine. That's because we believe in investing in education and in jobs. We have to change in this country. You know, my wife, Hillary, gave me a book about a year ago in which the author defined insanity as just doing the same old thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We have got to have the courage to change. Experience is important, yes. I've gotten a lot of good experience in dealing with ordinary people over the last year and a month. I've touched more people's lives and seen more heartbreak and hope, more pain and more promise than anybody else who's run for President this year. And I think the American people deserve better than they're getting. We have gone from first to 13th in the world in wages in the last 12 years since Mr. Bush and Mr. Reagan have been in. Personal income has dropped while people have worked harder in the last 4 years. There have been twice as many bankruptcies as new jobs created. We need a new approach. The same old experience is not relevant. We're living in a new world after the cold war. And what works in this new world is not trickle-down, not Government for the benefit of the privileged few, not tax-and-spend but a commitment to invest in American jobs and American education. Controlling American health care costs and bringing the American people together, that is what works. And you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people. And it will bring real results if we have the courage to change. Mr. Lehrer. President Bush, one minute to respond. President Bush. I just thought of another, another big difference here between me -- I don't believe Mr. Perot feels this way, but I know Governor Clinton did, because I want to accurately quote him. He thinks, I think he said, that the country is coming apart at the seams. Now, I know that the only way he can win is to make everybody believe the economy is worse than it is. But this country's not coming apart at the seams, for heaven sakes. We're the United States of America. In spite of the economic problems, we are the most respected economy around the world. Many would trade for it. We've been caught up in a global slowdown. We can do much, much better. But we ought not to try to convince the American people that America is a country that's coming apart at the seams. I would hate to be running for President and think that the only way I could win would be to convince everybody how horrible things are. Yes, there are big problems. And yes, people are hurting. But I believe that this Agenda for American Renewal I have is the answer to do it. And I believe we can get it done now, whereas we didn't in the past, because you're going to have a whole brandnew bunch of people in the Congress that are going to have to listen to the same American people I'm listening to. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Perot, a minute response, sir. Mr. Perot. Well, they've got a point. I don't have any experience in running up a $4 trillion debt. [Laughter] I don't have any experience in gridlocked Government where nobody takes responsibility for anything and everybody blames everybody else. I don't have any experience in creating the worst public school system in the industrialized world, the most violent, crime-ridden society in the industrialized world. But I do have a lot of experience in getting things done. So if we're at a point in history where we want to stop talking about it and do it, I've got a lot of experience in figuring out how to solve problems, making the solutions work, and then moving on to the next one. I've got a lot of experience in not taking 10 years to solve a 10-minute problem. So if it's time for action, I think I have experience that counts. If it's more time for gridlock and talk and finger-pointing, I'm the wrong man. Character Issues Mr. Lehrer. President Bush, the question goes to you. You have 2 minutes. And the question is this: Are there important issues of character separating you from these other two men? President Bush. I think the American people should be the judge of that. I think character is a very important question. I said something the other day where I was accused of being like Joe McCarthy because I questioned -- put it this way -- I think it's wrong to demonstrate against your own country or organize demonstrations against your own country in foreign soil. I just think it's wrong. Maybe, they say, well, it was a youthful indiscretion. I was 19 or 20, flying off an aircraft carrier, and that shaped me to be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. And I'm sorry, but demonstrating -- it's not a question of patriotism. It's a question of character and judgment. They get on me, Bill's gotten on me about "Read my lips." When I make a mistake, I'll admit it. But he has not admitted the mistake. And I just find it impossible to understand how an American can demonstrate against his own country in a foreign land, organizing demonstrations against it, when young men are held prisoner in Hanoi or kids out of the ghetto were drafted. Some say, well, you're a little old-fashioned. Maybe I am, but I just don't think that's right. Now, whether it's character or judgment, whatever it is, I have a big difference here on this issue. And so we'll just have to see how it plays out. But I couldn't do that. And I don't think most Americans could do that. And they all say, well, it was a long time ago. Well, let's admit it then, say, "I made a terrible mistake." How could you be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and have some kid say, when you have to make a tough decision, as I did in Panama or in Kuwait, and then have some kid jump up and say, "Well, I'm not going to go. The Commander in Chief was organizing demonstrations halfway around the world during another era"? So there are differences. But that's about the main area where I think we have a difference. I don't know about -- we'll talk about that a little with Ross here in a bit. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Perot, you have one minute. Mr. Perot. I think the American people will make their own decisions on character. And at a time when we have work to do and we need action, I think they need to clearly understand the backgrounds of each person. I think the press can play a huge role in making sure that the backgrounds are clearly presented in an objective way. Then make a decision. Certainly anyone in the White House should have the character to be there. But I think it's very important to measure when and where things occurred. Did they occur when you were a young person in your formative years, or did they occur while you were a senior official in the Federal Government? When you're a senior official in the Federal Government, spending billions of dollars in taxpayers' money, and you're a mature individual and you make a mistake, then that was on our ticket. If you make it as a young man, time passes. So I would say just look at all three of us, decide who you think will do the job, pick that person in November, because, believe me, as I've said before, the party's over, and it's time for the cleanup crew. And we do have to have change. And people who never take responsibility for anything when it happens on their watch, and people who are in charge -- -- Mr. Lehrer. Your time is up. Mr. Perot. -- -- the time is up. [Laughter] Mr. Lehrer. Time is up. Mr. Perot. More later. Mr. Lehrer. Governor Clinton, you have one minute. Governor Clinton. Ross gave a good answer, but I've got to respond directly to Mr. Bush. You have questioned my patriotism. You even brought some rightwing Congressmen into the White House to plot how to attack me for going to Russia in 1969 - 1970, when over 50,000 other Americans did. Now, I honor your service in World War II. I honor Mr. Perot's service in uniform and the service of every man and woman who ever served, including Admiral Crowe, who was your Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and who's supporting me. But when Joe McCarthy went around this country attacking people's patriotism, he was wrong. He was wrong. And a Senator from Connecticut stood up to him, named Prescott Bush. Your father was right to stand up to Joe McCarthy. You were wrong to attack my patriotism. I was opposed to the war, but I love my country. And we need a President who will bring this country together, not divide it. We've had enough division. I want to lead a unified country. Mr. Lehrer. All right. We move now to the subject of taxes and spending. The question goes to Governor Clinton for a two-minute answer. It will be asked by Ann Compton. Taxes Ann Compton. Governor Clinton, can you lock in a level here tonight on where middle-income families can be guaranteed a tax cut or, at the very least, at what income level they can be guaranteed no tax increase? Governor Clinton. The tax increase I have proposed triggers in at family incomes of $200,000 and above. Those are the people who, in the 1980's, had their incomes go up while their taxes went down. Middle-class people, defined as people with incomes of $52,000 and down, had their incomes go down while their taxes went up in the Reagan-Bush years because of six increases in the payroll taxes. So that is where my income limit would trigger. Ms. Compton. So there will be no tax increases below $200,000? Governor Clinton. My plan, notwithstanding my opponent's ad, my plan triggers in at gross incomes, family incomes of $200,000 and above. And then we want to give modest middle-class tax relief to restore some fairness, especially to middle-class people with families with incomes of under $60,000. In addition to that, the money that I raise from upper income people and from asking foreign corporations just to pay the same income on their income earned in America that American corporations do will be used to give incentives back to upper income people. I want to give people permanent incentives on investment tax credit like President Kennedy and the Congress inaugurated in the early sixties to get industry moving again; a research and development tax credit; a low-income housing tax credit; a long-term capital gains proposal for new business and business expansions. We've got to have no more trickle-down. We don't need across-the-board tax cuts for the wealthy for nothing; we need to say, here's your tax incentive if you create American jobs the old-fashioned way. I'd like to create more millionaires than were created under Mr. Bush and Mr. Reagan, but I don't want to have 4 years where we have no growth in the private sector. And that's what's happened in the last 4 years. We're down 35,000 jobs in the private sector. We need to invest and grow, and that's what I want to do. Mr. Lehrer. President Bush, one minute, sir. President Bush. I have to correct one thing. I didn't question the man's patriotism; I questioned his judgment and his character. What he did in Moscow, that's fine. Let him explain it. He did. I accept that. What I don't accept is demonstrating and organizing demonstrations in a foreign country when your country's at war. I'm sorry, I cannot accept that. This one on taxes spells out the biggest difference between us. I do not believe we need to go back to the Mondale proposals or the Dukakis proposals of tax-and-spend. Governor Clinton says $200,000, but he also says he wants to raise $150 billion. Taxing people over $200,000 will not get you $150 billion. And then when you add in his other spending proposals, regrettably, you end up socking it to the working man. That old adage that they use, "We're going to soak the rich, we're going to soak the rich," it always ends up being the poor cab driver or the working man that ends up paying the bill. And so I just have a different approach. I believe the way to get the deficit down is to control the growth of mandatory spending programs and not raise taxes on the American people. We've got a big difference there. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Perot, one minute. Mr. Perot. We've got to have a growing, expanding job base to give us a growing, expanding tax base. Right now, we have a flat-to-deteriorating job base, and where it appears to be growing is minimum-wage jobs. So we've got to really rebuild our job base. That's going to take money for infrastructure and investment to do that. Our foreign competitors are doing it; we're not. We cannot pay off the $4 trillion debt, balance the budget, and have the industries of the future and the high-paying jobs in this country without having the revenue. We're going to go through a period of shared sacrifice. There's one challenge: It's got to be fair. We've created a mess and don't have much to show for it, and we have got to fix it. And that's about all I can say in a minute. Mr. Lehrer. Okay. Next question goes to President Bush for a 2-minute answer, and it will be asked by Sandy Vanocur. U.S. Troops in Europe Sander Vanocur. Mr. President, this past week your Secretary of the Army, Michael Stone, said he had no plans to abide by a congressional mandate to cut U.S. forces in Europe from 150,000 to 100,000 by the end of September 1996. Now, why, almost 50 years after the end of World War II and with the total collapse of the Soviet Union, should American taxpayers be taxed, support armies in Europe, when the Europeans have plenty of money to do it for themselves? President Bush. Well, Sander, that's a good question. And the answer is: For 40-some years, we kept the peace. If you look at the cost of not keeping the peace in Europe, it would be exorbitant. We have reduced the number of troops that are deployed and going to be deployed. I have cut defense spending. And the reason we could do that is because of our fantastic success in winning the cold war. We never would have got there if we'd gone for the nuclear-freeze crowd; never would have got there if we'd listened to those that wanted to cut defense spending. I think it is important that the United States stay in Europe and continue to guarantee the peace. We simply cannot pull back. Now, when anybody has a spending program they want to spend money on at home, they say, well, let's cut money out of the Defense Department. I will accept and have accepted the recommendations of two proven leaders, General Colin Powell and Dick, Secretary Dick Cheney. They feel that the levels we're operating at and the reductions that I have proposed are proper. And so I simply do not think we should go back to the isolation days and start blaming foreigners. We are the sole remaining superpower. And we should be that. We have a certain disproportionate responsibility. But I would ask the American people to understand that if we make imprudent cuts, if we go too far, we risk the peace. And I don't want to do that. I've seen what it is like to see the burdens of a war, and I don't want to see us make reckless cuts. Because of our programs, we have been able to significantly cut defense spending. But let's not cut into the muscle. And let's not cut down our insurance policy, which is participation of American forces in NATO, the greatest peacekeeping organization ever made. Today, you've got problems in Europe still bubbling along, even though Europe's going democracy's route. But we are there. And I think this insurance policy is necessary. I think it goes with world leadership. And I think the levels we've come up with are just about right. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Perot, one minute, sir. Mr. Perot. If I'm poor and you're rich and I can get you to defend me, that's good. But when the tables get turned, I ought to do my share. Right now we spend about $300 billion a year on defense. The Japanese spend around $30 billion in Asia. The Germans spend around $30 billion in Europe. For example, Germany will spend a trillion dollars building infrastructure over the next 10 years. It's kind of easy to do if you only have to pick up a $30 billion tab to defend your country. The European Community is in a position to pay a lot more than they have in the past. I agree with the President, when they couldn't, we should have; now that they can, they should. We sort of seem to have a desire to try to stay over there and control it. They don't want us to control it, very candidly. So it I think is very important for us to let them assume more and more of the burden and for us to bring that money back here and rebuild our infrastructure. Because we can only be a superpower if we are an economic superpower, and we can only be an economic superpower if we have a growing, expanding job base. Mr. Lehrer. Governor Clinton, one minute, sir. Governor Clinton. I agree with the general statement Mr. Bush made. I disagree that we need 150,000 troops to fulfill our role in Europe. We certainly must maintain an engagement there. There are certainly dangers there. There are certainly other trouble spots in the world which are closer to Europe than to the United States. But two former Defense Secretaries recently issued reports saying that 100,000 or slightly fewer troops would be enough, including President Reagan's former Defense Secretary, Mr. Carlucci. Many of the military experts whom I consulted on this agreed. We're going to have to spend more money in the future on military technology and on greater mobility, greater airlift, greater sealift, the B - 22 airplane. We're going to have to do some things that are quite costly, and I simply don't believe we can afford, nor do we need to keep 150,000 troops in Europe, given how much the Red Army, now under the control of Russia, has been cut; the arms control agreement concluded between Mr. Bush and Mr. Yeltsin, something I have applauded. I don't think we need 150,000 troops. Let me make one other point. Mr. Bush talked about taxes. He didn't tell you that he vetoed a middle-class tax cut because it would be paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy and vetoed an investment tax credit paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy. Taxes Mr. Lehrer. All right. We go now to Mr. Perot for a 2-minute question, and it will be asked by John Mashek. John Mashek. Mr. Perot, you talked about fairness just a minute ago, on sharing the pain. As part of your plan to reduce the ballooning Federal deficit, you've suggested that we raise gasoline taxes 50 cents a gallon over 5 years. Why punish the middle-class consumer to such a degree? Mr. Perot. It's 10 cents a year, cumulative. It finally gets to 50 cents at the end of the fifth year. I think "punish" is the wrong word. Again, you see, I didn't create this problem; we're trying to solve it. Now, if you study our international competitors, some of our international competitors collect up to $3.50 a gallon in taxes. And they use that money to build infrastructure and create jobs. We collect 35 cents, and we don't have it to spend. I know it's not popular. And I understand the nature of your question. But the people who will be helped the most by it are the working people who will get the jobs created because of this tax. Why do we have to do it? Because we have so mismanaged our country over the years, and it is now time to pay the fiddler. And if we don't, we will be spending our children's money. We have spent $4 trillion worth. An incredible number of young people are active in supporting my effort because they're deeply concerned that we have taken the American dream from them. I think it's fitting that we're on the campus of a university tonight. These young people, when they get out of this wonderful university, will have difficulty finding a job. We've got to clean this mess up, leave this country in good shape, and pass on the American dream to them. We're got to collect the taxes to do it. If there's a fairer way, I'm all ears. Ah-h-h. [Laughter] But see, let me make it very clear. People don't have the stomach to fix these problems, I think it's a good time to face it in November. If they do, then they will have heard the harsh reality of what we have to do. I'm not playing Lawrence Welk music tonight. Mr. Lehrer. Governor Clinton, you have a minute, sir. Governor Clinton. I think Mr. Perot has confronted this deficit issue, but I think it's important to point out that we really have two deficits in America, not one. We have a budget deficit in the Federal Government, but we also have an investment, a jobs, an income deficit. People are working harder for less money than they were making 10 years ago: two-thirds of our people, a $1,600 drop in average income in just the last 2 years. The problem I have with the Perot prescription is that almost all economists who have looked at it say that if you cut the deficit this much this quick, it will increase unemployment, it will slow down the economy. That's why I think we shouldn't do it that quickly. We have a disciplined reduction in the deficit of 50 percent over the next 4 years. But first, get incentives to invest in this economy, put the American people back to work. We've got to invest in growth. Nine Nobel Prize-winning economists and 500 others, including numerous Republican and Democratic business executives, have endorsed this approach because it offers the best hope to put America back to work and get our incomes rising instead of falling. Mr. Lehrer. President Bush, one minute, sir. President Bush. The question was on fairness. I just disagree with Mr. Perot. I don't believe it is fair to slap a 50-cent-a-gallon tax over whatever many years on the people that have to drive for a living, people that go long distances. I don't think we need to do it. You see, I have a fundamental difference. I agree with what he's talking about in trying to get the spending down and to discipline, although I think we ought to totally exempt Social Security. But he's talking tough medicine, and I think that's good. I disagree with the tax-and-spend philosophy. You see, I don't think we need to tax more and spend more and then say that's going to make the problem better. And I'm afraid that's what I think I'm hearing from Governor Clinton. I believe what you need to do is some of what Ross is talking about: control the growth of mandatory spending and get taxes down. He's mentioned some ways to do it, and I agree with those. I've been talking about getting a capital gains cut forever. And his friends in Congress have been telling me that's a tax break for the rich. It would stimulate investment. I'm for an investment tax allowance. I am for a tax break for first-time homebuyers. And with this new Congress coming in, gridlock will be gone and I'll sit down with them and say, let's get this done. But I do not want to go the tax-and-spend route. Mr. Lehrer. All right. Let's move on now to the subject of jobs. The first question goes to President Bush for 2 minutes, and John will ask that question. John? The Defense Industry Mr. Mashek. Mr. President, last month you came to St. Louis to announce a very lucrative contract for McDonnell Douglas to build F - 15's for Saudi Arabia. In today's Post-Dispatch, a retired saleswoman, a 75-year-old woman named Marjorie Roberts, asked if she could ask a question of the candidates, said she wanted to register her concern about the lack of a plan to convert our defense-oriented industries into other purposes. How would you answer her? President Bush. Well, I assume she was supportive of the decision on McDonnell Douglas. I assume she was supporting me on the decision to sell those airplanes. I think it's a good decision. I took a little heat for it, but I think it was the correct decision to do. And we've worked it out, and indeed, we're moving forward all around the world in a much more peaceful way. So that one we came away with which -- in creating jobs for the American people. I would simply say to her, look, take a look at what the President has proposed on job retraining. When you cut back on defense spending, some people are going to be thrown out of work. If you throw another 50,000 kids on the street because of cutting recklessly in troop levels, you're going to put a lot more out of work. I would say to them, look at the job retraining programs that we're proposing. Therein is the best answer to her. And another one is, stimulate investment and savings. I mean, we've got big economic problems, but we are not coming apart at the seams. We're ready for a recovery with interest rates down and inflation down, the cruelest tax of all; caught up in a global slowdown right now, but that will change if you go with the programs I've talked about and if you help with job retraining and education. I am a firm believer that our America 2000 education problem is the answer. A little longer run; it's going to take a while to educate, but it is a good program. So her best hope for short term is job retraining if she was thrown out of work at a defense plant. But tell her it's not all that gloomy. We're the United States. We've faced tough problems before. Look at the "misery index" when the Democrats had both the White House and the Congress. It was just right through the roof. Now, we can do better. And the way to do better is not to tax and spend but to retrain, get that control of the mandatory spending programs. I am much more optimistic about this country than some. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Perot, you have one minute, sir. Mr. Perot. Your defense industries are going to have to convert to civilian industries, many of them are. And the sooner they start, the sooner they'll finish. And there will be a significant transition. And it's very important that we not continue to let our industrial base deteriorate. We had someone who I'm sure regrets said it in the President's staff, said he didn't care whether we make potato chips or computer chips. Well, anybody that thinks about it cares a great deal. Number one, you make more making computer chips than you do potato chips. Number two, 19 out of 20 computer chips that we have in this country now come from Japan. We've given away whole industries. So as we phase these industries over, there's a lot of intellectual talent in these industries. A lot of these people in industries can be converted to the industries of tomorrow. And that's where the high-paying jobs are. We need to have a very carefully thought through phaseover. See, we practice 19th century capitalism. The rest of the world practices 21st century capitalism. I can't handle that in a minute, but I hope we can get back into it later. The rest of the world, the countries and the businesses would be working together to make this transition in an intelligent way. Mr. Lehrer. Governor Clinton, you have one minute, sir. Governor Clinton. We must have a transition plan, a plan to convert from a defense to a domestic economy. No other nation would have cut defense as much as we already have without that. There are 200,000 people unemployed in California alone because we have cut defense without planning to retrain them and to reinvest in the technologies of the future here at home. That is what I want to do. This administration may say they have a plan, but the truth is they have not even released all the money, the paltry sum of money that Congress appropriated. I want to take every dollar by which we reduced defense and reinvest it in technologies for the 21st century: in new transportation, in communication, and environmental cleanup technologies. Let's put the American people to work. And let's build the kind of high-tech, high-wage, high-growth economy that the American people deserve. Mr. Lehrer. All right. The next question goes to Mr. Perot for a 2 minute answer. It will be asked by Ann. Ann? Jobs Program Ms. Compton. Mr. Perot, you talked a minute ago about rebuilding the job base. But is it true what Governor Clinton just said, that that means that unemployment will increase, that it will slow the economy? And how would you specifically use the powers of the Presidency to get more people back into good jobs immediately? Mr. Perot. Step one: The American people send me up there, the day after election, I'll get with the -- we won't even wait until inauguration -- I'll ask the President to help me, and I'll ask his staff to help me. And we will start putting together teams to put together -- to take all the plans that exist and do something with them. Please understand, there are great plans lying all over Washington nobody ever executes. It's like having a blueprint for a house you never built. You don't have anywhere to sleep. Now, our challenge is to take these things, do something with them. Step one: You want to put America back to work, clean up the small business problem. Have one task force at work on that. The second: You've got your big companies that are in trouble, including the defense industries, have another one on that. Have a third task force on new industries of the future to make sure we nail those for our country, and they don't wind up in Europe and Asia. Convert from 19th to 21st century capitalism. You see, we have an adversarial relationship between Government and business. Our international competitors that are cleaning our plate have an intelligent relationship between Government and business and a supportive relationship. Then, have another task force on crime, because next to jobs, our people are concerned about their safety. Health care, schools, one on the debt and deficit. And finally, in that 90-day period before the inauguration, put together the framework for the town hall and give the American people a Christmas present, show them by Christmas the first cut at these plans. By the time Congress comes into session to go to work, have those plans ready to go in front of Congress. Then get off to a flying start in '93 to execute these plans. Now, there are people in this room and people on this stage who have been in meetings when I would sit there and say, is this one we're going to talk about or do something about? Well, obviously, my orientation is let's go do it. Now, put together your plans by Christmas. Be ready to go when Congress goes. Nail these things -- small business, you've got to have capital; you've got to have credit; and many of them need mentors or coaches. And we can create more jobs there in a hurry than any other place. Mr. Lehrer. Governor Clinton, one minute. Governor Clinton. This country desperately needs a jobs program. And my first priority would be to pass a jobs program, to introduce it on the first day I was inaugurated. I would meet with the leaders of the Congress, with all the newly elected Members of the Congress, and as many others with whom I could meet between the time of the election and the inauguration. And we would present a jobs program. Then we would present a plan to control health care costs and phase in health care coverage for all Americans. Until we control health care costs, we're not going to control the deficit. It is the number one culprit. But first we must have an aggressive jobs program. I live in a State where manufacturing job growth has far outpaced the Nation in the last few years; where we have created more private sector jobs since Mr. Bush has been President than have been created in the entire rest of the country, where Mr. Bush's Labor Secretary said the job growth has been enormous. We've done it in Arkansas. Give me a chance to create these kinds of jobs in America. We can do it. I know we can. Mr. Lehrer. President Bush, one minute. President Bush. Well, we've got a plan announced for what we can do for small business. I've already put forward things that will get this country working fast, some of which have been echoed here tonight: investment tax allowance, capital gains reduction, more on research and development, a tax credit for first-time homebuyers. What I'm going to do is say to Jim Baker when this campaign is over, "All right, let's sit down now. You do in domestic affairs what you've done in foreign affairs. Be the kind of economic coordinator of all the domestic side of the house, and that includes all the economic side, all the training side, and bring this program together." We're going to have a new Congress. And we're going to say to them, "You've listened to the voters the way we have. Nobody wants gridlock anymore. And so let's get the program through." And I believe it will work, because, as Ross said, we've got the plans. The plans are all over Washington. And I have put ours together in something called the Agenda for American Renewal. And it makes sense. It's sensible. It creates jobs. It gets to the base of the kind of jobs we need. And so I'll just be asking for support to get that put into effect. Mr. Lehrer. The next question goes to Governor Clinton for 2 minutes. It will be asked by Sandy. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Mr. Vanocur. Governor Clinton, when a President running for the first time gets into the office and wants to do something about the economy, he finds in Washington there's a person who has much more power over the economy than he does: the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, accountable to no one. That being the case, would you go along with proposals made by Treasury Secretary James Brady and Congressman Lee Hamilton to make the Federal Reserve Board Chairman somehow more accountable to elected officials? Governor Clinton. Well, let me say that I think that we might ought to review the terms and the way it works. But frankly, I don't think that's the problem today. We have low interest rates today. At least we have low interest rates that the Fed can control. Our long-term interest rates are still pretty high because of our deficit and because of our economic performance. And there was a terrible reaction internationally to Mr. Bush saying he was going to give us 4 more years of trickle-down economics and other across-the-board tax cuts and most of it going to the wealthy with no real guarantee of investment. But I think the important thing is to use the powers the President does have on the assumption that given the condition of this economy, we're going to keep interest rates down if we have the discipline to increase investment and reduce the debt at the same time. That is my commitment. I think the American people are hungry for action. I think Congress is hungry for someone who will work with them, instead of manipulate them; someone who will not veto a bill that has an investment credit, middle class tax relief, research and development tax credits, as Mr. Bush has done. Give me a chance to do that. I don't have to worry, I don't think, in the near term, about the Federal Reserve. Their policies so far, it seems to me, are pretty sound. Mr. Lehrer. President Bush, you have one minute. President Bush. I don't think the Fed ought to be put under the Executive Branch. There is separation there. I think that's fine. Alan Greenspan is respected. I've had some arguments with him about the speed in which we might have lowered rates. But Governor Clinton, he talks about the reaction to the markets. There was a momentary fear that he might win, and the markets went "rrrfft" -- down like that -- [laughter] -- so I don't -- we can judge on -- the stock market has been strong. It's been very strong since I've been President. And they recognize we've got great difficulties. But they're also much more optimistic than the pessimists we have up here tonight. In terms of vetoing tax bills, you're darn right. I am going to protect the American taxpayer against the spend-and-tax Congress. And I'm going to keep on vetoing them because I don't think we are taxed too little. I think the Government's spending too much. So Governor Clinton can label it tax for the rich or anything he wants. I'm going to protect the working man by continuing to veto and to threaten veto until we get this new Congress, when then we're going to move forward on our plan. I`ve got to protect them. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Perot, one minute. Mr. Perot. Keep the Federal Reserve independent, but let's live in a world of reality. We live in a global economy, not a national economy. These interest rates we have now don't make any sense. We have a $4 trillion debt, and only in America would you finance 70 percent of it 5 years or less. So 70 percent of our debt is 5 years or less, it's very interest-sensitive. We have a 4-percent gap between what we pay for treasuries and what Germany pays for 1- to 5-year treasuries. That gap is going to close because the Arabs, the Japanese, and folks in this country are going to start buying German treasuries because they can get more money. Every time our interest rates go up 1 percent, that adds $28 billion to the deficit or to the debt, whichever place you want to put it. We are sitting on a ticking bomb, folks, because we have totally mismanaged our country. And we had better get it back under control. Just think, in your own business, if you had all of your long-term problems financed short term, you'd go broke in a hurry. Mr. Lehrer. We're going to move to foreign affairs. The first question goes to Mr. Perot for a 2-minute answer, and Sandy will ask it. Foreign Affairs Mr. Vanocur. Mr. Perot, in the post-cold-war environment, what should be the overriding U.S. national interest? And what can the United States do, and what can it afford to do to defend that national interest? Mr. Perot. Again, if you're not rich, you're not a superpower, so we have two that I'd put as number one. I have a "1" and "1a." One is, we've got to have the money to be able to pay for defense. And we've got to manufacture here. Believe it or not, folks, you can't ship it all overseas. You've got to make it here. And you can't convert from potato chips to airplanes in an emergency. You see, Willow Run could be converted from cars to airplanes in World War II because it was here. We've got to make things here. You just can't ship them overseas anymore. I hope we talk more about that. Second thing, on priorities, we've got to help Russia succeed in its revolution and all of its republics. When we think of Russia, remember we're thinking of many countries now. We've got to help them. That's pennies on the dollar compared to renewing the cold war. Third, we've got all kinds of agreements on paper and some that are being executed on getting rid of nuclear warheads. Russia and its republics are out of control or, at best, in weak control right now. It's a very unstable situation. You've got every rich Middle Eastern country over there trying to buy nuclear weapons, as you well know. And that will lead to another five-star migraine headache down the road. We really need to nail down the intercontinental ballistic missiles, the ones that can hit us from Russia. We've focused on the tactical; we've made real progress there. We've got some agreements on the nuclear, but we don't have those things put away yet. The sooner, the better. So in terms of priorities, we've got to be financially strong. Number two, we've got to take care of this missile situation and try to get the nuclear war behind us and give that a very high priority. And number three, we need to help and support Russia and the republics in every possible way to become democratic, capitalistic societies and not just sit back and let those countries continue in turmoil, because they could go back worse than things used to be. And believe me, there are a lot of old boys in the KGB and the military that like it better the way it used to be. Thank you. Mr. Lehrer. Governor Clinton, one minute. Governor Clinton. In order to keep America the strongest nation in the world, we need some continuity and some change. There are three fundamental challenges. First of all, the world is still a dangerous and uncertain place. We need a new military and a new national security policy equal to the challenges of the post-cold-war era; a smaller permanent military force, but one that is more mobile, well-trained, with high-technology equipment. We need to continue the negotiations to reduce nuclear arsenals in the Soviet Union, the former Soviet Union, and the United States. We need to stop this proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Second, we have to face that in this world economic security is a whole lot of national security. Our dollar is at an all-time low against some foreign currencies. We're weak in the world. We must rebuild America's strength at home. Finally, we ought to be promoting the democratic impulses around the world. Democracies are our partners. They don't go to war with each other. They're reliable friends in the future. National security, economic strength, democracy. Mr. Lehrer. President Bush, one minute. President Bush. We still are the envy of the world in terms of our military; there's no question about that. We're the envy of the world in terms of our economy, in spite of the difficulties we're having; there's no question about that. Our exports are dramatically up. I might say to Mr. Perot, I can understand why you might have missed it because there's so much fascination by trivia, but I worked out a deal with Boris Yeltsin to eliminate, get rid of entirely, the most destabilizing weapons of all, the SS - 18, the big intercontinental ballistic missile. I mean, that's been done. And thank God it has, because the parents of these young people around here go to bed at night without the same fear of nuclear war. We've made dramatic progress. So we've got a good military -- the question that says get a new military, get the best in the world -- we've got it, and they're keeping the peace. They're respected around the world, and we are more respected because of the way we have conducted ourselves. We didn't listen to the nuclear freeze crowd. We said, peace through strength. It worked, and the cold war is over. America understands that. But we're turned so inward we don't understand the global picture. We are helping democracy. Ross, the FREEDOM Support Act is something that I got through the Congress, and it's a very good thing because it does exactly what you say, and I think you agree with that, to help Russian democracy. We're going to keep on doing that. Mr. Lehrer. All right, Next question is for Governor Clinton, and John will ask it. China-U.S. Relations Mr. Mashek. Governor Clinton, you've accused the President of coddling tyrants, including those in Beijing. As President, how would you exert U.S. power to influence affairs in China? Governor Clinton. I think our relation-ships with China are important, and I don't think we want to isolate China. But I think it is a mistake for us to do what this administration did when all those kids went out there carrying the Statue of Liberty in Tiananmen Square, and Mr. Bush sent two people in secret to toast the Chinese leaders and basically tell them not to worry about it. They rewarded him by opening negotiations with Iran to transfer nuclear technology. That was their response to that sort of action. Now that voices in the Congress and throughout the country have insisted that we do something about China, look what has happened. China has finally agreed to stop sending us products made with prison labor not because we coddled them but because the administration was pushed into doing something about it. Recently the Chinese have announced that they're going to lower some barriers to our products, which they ought to do since they have a $15 billion trade surplus with the United States under Mr. Bush, the second biggest surplus of all, second to Japan. So I would be firm. I would say, if you want to continue most-favored-nation status for your government-owned industries as well as your private ones, observe human rights in the future. Open your society. Recognize the legitimacy of those kids that were carrying the Statue of Liberty. If we can stand up for our economic interests, we ought to be able to pursue the democratic interests of the people in China. And over the long run they'll be more reliable partners. Mr. Lehrer. President Bush, you have one minute. President Bush. Well, the administration was the first major country to stand up against the abuse in Tiananmen Square. We are the ones that worked out the prison labor deal. We are the ones that have lowered the barrier to products, the Carla Hills negotiation. I am the one that said, let's keep the MFN because you see China moving toward a free market economy. To do what the Congress and Governor Clinton are suggesting, you would isolate and ruin Hong Kong. They are making some progress, not enough for us. We were the first ones to put sanctions on. We still have them on some things. But Governor Clinton's philosophy is isolate them. He says don't do it, but the policies he's expounding of putting conditions on MFN and kind of humiliating them is not the way you make the kind of progress we are getting. I have stood up with these people, and I understand what you have to do to be strong in this situation. It's moving, not as fast as we'd like. But you isolate China and turn them inward, and then we've made a tremendous mistake. I'm not going to do it. I've had to fight a lot of people that were saying "human rights." We are the ones that put the sanctions on and stood for it. And he can insult General Scowcroft if he wants to. He didn't go over to coddle. He went over to say -- -- Mr. Lehrer. Mr. President, you're over -- -- President Bush. -- -- you must make the very changes they're making now. Mr. Lehrer. One minute, Mr. Perot. Mr. Perot. China's a huge country, broken into many provinces. It has some very elderly leaders that will not be around too much longer. Capitalism is growing and thriving across big portions of China. Asia will be our largest trading partner in the future. It will be a growing and a closer relationship. We have a delicate tightwire walk that we must go through at the present time to make sure that we do not cozy up to tyrants, to make sure that they don't get the impression that they can suppress their people. But time is our friend there because their leaders will change in not too many years, worst case. And their country is making great progress. One last point on the missiles. I don't want the American people to be confused. We have written agreements, and we have some missiles that have been destroyed, but we have a huge number of intercontinental ballistic missiles that are still in place in Russia. The fact that you have an agreement is one thing. Until they're destroyed, some crazy person can either sell them or use them. Mr. Lehrer. All right. The next question goes to President Bush for a 2-minute answer, and Ann will ask it. Bosnia and Somalia Ms. Compton. Mr. President, how can you watch the killing in Bosnia and the ethnic cleansing, or the starvation and anarchy in Somalia, and not want to use America's might, if not America's military, to try to end that kind of suffering? President Bush. Ann, both of them are very complicated situations. I vowed something, because I learned something from Vietnam: I am not going to commit U.S. forces until I know what the mission is, until the military tell me that it can be completed, until I know how they can come out. We are helping. American airplanes are helping today on humanitarian relief for Sarajevo. It is America that's in the lead in helping with humanitarian relief for Somalia. But when you go to put somebody else's son or daughter into war, I think you've got to be a little bit careful, and you have to be sure that there's a military plan that can do this. You have ancient ethnic rivalries that have cropped up as Yugoslavia is dissolved or getting dissolved. It isn't going to be solved by sending in the 82d Airborne, and I'm not going to do that as Commander in Chief. I am going to stand by and use the moral persuasion of the United States to get satisfaction in terms of prison camps, and we're making some progress there, and in terms of getting humanitarian relief in there. Right now, as you know, the United States took the lead in a no-fly operation up there, no-fly order up in the United Nations. We're working through the international organizations. That's one thing I learned by forging that tremendous and greatly, highly successful coalition against Saddam Hussein, the dictator: Work internationally to do it. I'm very concerned about it. I'm concerned about ethnic cleansing. I'm concerned about attacks on Muslims, for example, over there. But I must stop short of using American force until I know how those young men and women are going to get out of there as well as get in, know what the mission is and define it. I think I'm on the right track. Ms. Compton. Are you designing a mission that would -- -- Mr. Lehrer. Ann, sorry, sorry. Time is up. We have to go to Mr. Perot for a one-minute response. Mr. Perot. If we learned anything in Vietnam, it's you first commit this Nation before you commit the troops to the battlefield. We cannot send our people all over the world to solve every problem that comes up. This is basically a problem that is a primary concern to the European Community. Certainly we care about the people. We care about the children. We care about the tragedy. But it is inappropriate for us, just because there's a problem somewhere around the world, to take the sons and daughters of working people -- and make no mistake about it, our all-volunteer armed force is not made up of the sons and daughters of the beautiful people. It's the working folks that send their sons and daughters to war, with a few exceptions. Very unlike World War II when FDR's sons flew missions; everybody went. It's a different world now. It's very important that we not just, without thinking it through, just rush to every problem in the world and have our people torn to pieces. Mr. Lehrer. Governor Clinton, one minute. Governor Clinton. I agree that we cannot commit ground forces to become involved in the quagmire of Bosnia or in the tribal wars of Somalia. But I think that it's important to recognize that there are things that can be done short of that and that we do have interests there. There are, after all, two million refugees now because of the problems in what was Yugoslavia, the largest number since World War II, and there may be hundreds of thousands of people who will starve or freeze to death in this winter. The United States should try to work with its allies and stop it. I urged the President to support this air cover, and he did, and I applaud that. I applaud the no-fly zone, and I know that he's going back to the United Nations to try to get authority to enforce it. I think we should stiffen the embargo on the Belgrade government. I think we have to consider whether or not we should lift the arms embargo now on the Bosnians, since they are in no way in a fair fight with a heavily armed opponent bent on ethnic cleansing. We can't get involved in the quagmire, but we must do what we can. Mr. Lehrer. All right. Moving on now to divisions in our country. The first question goes to Governor Clinton for two minutes, and Ann will ask it. Family Values Ms. Compton. Governor Clinton, can you tell us what your definition of the word "family" is? Governor Clinton. A family involves at least one parent, whether natural or adoptive or foster, and children. A good family is a place where love and discipline and good values are transmuted from the elders to the children, a place where people turn for refuge and where they know they're the most important people in the world. America has a lot of families that are in trouble today. There's been a lot of talk about family values in this campaign. I know a lot about that. I was born to a widowed mother who gave me family values, and grandparents. I've seen the family values of my people in Arkansas. I've seen the family values of all these people in America who are out there killing themselves, working harder for less in a country that's had the worst economic years in 50 years and the first decline in industrial production ever. I think the President owes it to family values to show that he values America's families. Whether they're people on welfare, you're trying to move from welfare to work; the working poor, whom I think deserve a tax break to lift them above poverty if they've got a child in the house and working 40 hours a week; working families, who deserve a fair tax system and the opportunity for constant retraining. They deserve a strong economy. I think they deserve a family and medical leave act. Seventy-two other nations have been able to do it. Mr. Bush vetoed it twice because he says we can't do something 72 other countries do, even though there was a small business exemption. So with all the talk about family values, I know about family values. I wouldn't be here without them. The best expression of my family values is that tonight's my 17th wedding anniversary, and I'd like to close my question by just wishing my wife a happy anniversary and thanking my daughter for being here. Mr. Lehrer. President Bush, one minute. President Bush. Well, I would say that one meeting that made a profound impression on me was when the mayors of the big cities, including the Mayor of Los Angeles, a Democrat, came to see me, and they unanimously said the decline in urban America stems from the decline in the American family. So I do think we need to strengthen family. When Barbara holds an AIDS baby, she's showing a certain compassion for family. When she reads to children, the same thing. I believe that discipline and respect for the law, all of these things, should be taught to children, not in our schools but families have to do that. I'm appalled at the high, outrageous numbers of divorces. It's happened in families; it's happened in ours. But it's gotten too much, and I just think that we ought to do everything we can to respect the American family. It can be a single-parent family. Those mothers need help. One way to do it is to get these deadbeat fathers to pay their obligations to these mothers. That will help strengthen the American family. And there's a whole bunch of other things that I can't click off in this short period of time. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Perot, you have one minute. Mr. Perot. If I had to solve all the problems that face this country and I could be granted one wish as we started down the trail to rebuild the job base, the schools, and so on and so forth, I would say a strong family unit in every home, where every child is loved, nurtured, and encouraged. A little child, before they're 18 months, learns to think well of himself or herself, or poorly. They develop a positive or negative self-image. At a very early age, they learn how to learn. If we have children who are not surrounded with love and affection -- see, I look at my grandchildren and wonder if they'll ever learn to walk because they're always in someone's arms. I think, my gosh, wouldn't it be wonderful if every child had that love and support, but they don't. We will not be a great country unless we have a strong family unit in every home. And I think you can use the White House as a bully pulpit to stress the importance of these little children, particularly in their young and formative years, to mold these little precious pieces of clay so that they, too, can live rich, full lives when they're grown. Mr. Lehrer. New question, 2-minute answer, goes to President Bush. Sandy will ask it. Legalization of Drugs Mr. Vanocur. Mr. President, there's been a lot of talk about Harry Truman in this campaign, so much so that I think tomorrow I'll wake up and see him named as the next commissioner of baseball. [Laughter] President Bush. We could use one. Mr. Vanocur. The thing that Mr. Truman didn't have to deal with is drugs. Americans are increasingly alarmed about drug-related crimes in cities and suburbs, and your administration is not the first to have grappled with this. Are you at all of a mind that maybe it ought to go to another level, if not to what's advocated by William F. Buckley, Jr., and Milton Friedman, legalization, somewhere between there and where we are now? President Bush. No. I don't think that's the right answer. I don't believe legalizing narcotics is the answer. I just don't believe that's the answer. I do believe that there's some fairly good news out there. The use of cocaine, for example, by teenagers is dramatically down. But we've got to keep fighting on this war against drugs. We're doing a little better in interdiction. Many of the countries that used to say, "Well, this is a United States problem. If you'd get the demand down, then we wouldn't have the problem," are working cooperatively with the DEA and other law -- the military. We're using the military more now in terms of interdiction. Our funding for recovery is up, recovering the addicts. Where we're not making the progress, Sander, is in -- we're making it in teenagers. And thank God, because I thought what Ross said was most appropriate about these families and these children. But where we're not making it is with the confirmed addicts. I'll tell you one place that's working well, and that is the private sector, Jim Burke and this task force that he has. You may know about it. Tell the American people, but this man said, "I'll get you a million dollars a day in pro bono advertising," something that's very hard for the Government to do. He went out and he did it, and people are beginning to educate through this program, teaching these kids you shouldn't use drugs. So we're still in the fight. But I must tell you, I think legalization of narcotics or something of that nature, in the face of the medical evidence, would be totally counterproductive. And I oppose it, and I'm going to stand up and continue to oppose it. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Perot, one minute. Mr. Perot. Any time you think you want to legalize drugs, go to a neonatal unit, if you can get in. They are between 100 and 200 percent capacity up and down the East Coast, and the reason is crack babies being born. Baby's in the hospital 42 days; typical cost to you and me is $125,000. Again and again and again, the mother disappears in 3 days, and the child becomes a ward of the State because he's permanently and genetically damaged. Just look at those little children, and if anybody can even think about legalizing drugs, they've lost me. Now, let's look at priorities. We went on the Libyan raid, you remember that one, because we were worried to death that Qadhafi might be building up chemical weapons. We've got chemical warfare being conducted against our children on the streets in this country all day, every day, and we don't have the will to stamp it out. Again, if I get up there, if you send me, we're going to have some blunt talks about this. We're really going to get out in the trenches and say, "Is this one you want to talk about or fix?" Because talk won't do it, folks. There are guys that couldn't get a job third shift in a Dairy Queen, driving BMW's and Mercedes, selling drugs. These old boys are not going to quit easy. Mr. Lehrer. Governor Clinton, one minute. Governor Clinton. Like Mr. Perot, I have held crack babies in my arms. But I know more about this, I think, than anybody else up here because I have a brother who's a recovering drug addict. I'm very proud of him. But I can tell you this: If drugs were legal, I don't think he'd be alive today. I am adamantly opposed to legalizing drugs. He is alive today because of the criminal justice system. That's a mistake. What should we do? First, we ought to prevent more of this on the street. Thirty years ago there were three policemen for every crime. Now there are three crimes for every policeman. We need 100,000 more police on the street. I have a plan for that. Secondly, we ought to have treatment on demand. Thirdly, we ought to have boot camps for first-time nonviolent offenders so they can get discipline and treatment and education and get reconnected to the community, before they are severed and sent to prison where they can learn how to be first-class criminals. There is a crime bill that, lamentably, was blocked from passage once again, mostly by Republicans in the United States Senate, which would have addressed some of these problems. That crime bill is going to be one of my highest priorities next January if I become President. Mr. Lehrer. Next question is to you, Mr. Perot. You have 2 minutes to answer it, and John will ask it. Racial Harmony Mr. Mashek. Mr. Perot, racial division continues to tear apart our great cities, the last episode being this spring in Los Angeles. Why is this still happening in America? And what would you do to end it? Mr. Perot. This is a relevant question here tonight. First thing I'd do is during political campaigns, I would urge everybody to stop trying to split this country into fragments and appeal to the differences between us, and then wonder why the melting pot's all broken to pieces after November the 3d. We are all in this together. We ought to love one another, because united teams win and divided teams lose. If we can't love one another, we ought to get along with one another. If you can't get there, just recognize we're all stuck with one another, because nobody's going anywhere. Right? [Laughter] Now, that ought to get everybody back up to let's get along together and make it work. Our diversity is a strength. We've turned it into a weakness. Now, again, the White House is a bully pulpit. I think whoever's in the White House should just make it absolutely unconscionable and inexcusable. And if anybody's in the middle of a speech at, you know, one of these conventions, I would expect the candidate to go out and lift him off the stage if he starts preaching hate, because we don't have time for it. Our differences are our strengths. We have got to pull together. In athletics, we know it. You see, divided teams lose; united teams win. We have got to unite and pull together. And there's nothing we can't do. But if we sit around blowing all this energy out the window on racial strife and hatred, we are stuck with a sure loser, because we have been a melting pot. We're becoming more and more of a melting pot. Let's make it a strength, not a weakness. Mr. Lehrer. Governor Clinton, one minute. Governor Clinton. I grew up in the segregated south, thankfully raised by a grandfather with almost no formal education but with a heart of gold who taught me early that all people were equal in the eyes of God. I saw the winds of hatred divide people and keep the people of my State poorer than they would have been, spiritually and economically. I've done everything I could in my public life to overcome racial divisions. We don't have a person to waste in this country. We are being murdered economically because we have too many dropouts. We have too many low-birth weight babies. We have too many drug addicts as kids. We have too much violence. We are too divided by race, by income, by region. I have devoted a major portion of this campaign to going across this country and looking for opportunities to go to white groups and African-American groups and Latino groups, Asian-American groups and say the same thing: If the American people cannot be brought together, we can't turn this country around. If we can come together, nothing, nothing can stop us. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. President, one minute. President Bush. Well, I think Governor Clinton is committed. I do think it's fair to note -- he can rebut it -- that Arkansas is one of the few States that doesn't have any civil rights legislation. I've tried to use the White House as a bully pulpit, speaking out against discrimination. We passed two very forward-looking civil rights bills. It's not going to be all done by legislation, but I do think that you need to make an appeal every time you can to eliminate racial divisions and discrimination. And I'll keep on doing that and pointing to some legislative accomplishment to back it up. I have to take 10 seconds here at the end -- the red light isn't on yet -- to say to Ross Perot, please don't say to the DEA agents on the street that we don't have the will to fight drugs. Please, I have watched these people. The same for our local law enforcement people; we're backing them in every way we possibly can. But maybe you meant that some in the country don't have the will to fight it. But those that are out there on the front line -- as you know; you've been a strong backer of law enforcement; really, I just want to clear that up -- have the will to fight it. And frankly, some of them are giving their lives. Mr. Lehrer. Time, Mr. President. All right, let's go now to another subject, the subject of health. The first question for 2 minutes is to President Bush, and John will ask it. AIDS Mr. Mashek. Mr. President, yesterday tens of thousands of people paraded past the White House to demonstrate their concern about the disease AIDS. A celebrated member of your Commission, Magic Johnson, quit, saying that there was too much inaction. Where is this widespread feeling coming from that your administration is not doing enough about AIDS? President Bush. Coming from the political process. We have increased funding for AIDS. We've doubled it, on research and on every other aspect of it. My request for this year was $4.9 billion for AIDS, 10 times as much for AIDS victim as per cancer victim. I think that we're showing the proper compassion and concern. So I can't tell you where it's coming from, but I am very much concerned about AIDS, and I believe that we've got the best researchers in the world out there at NIH working the problem. We're funding them. I wish there was more money, but we're funding them far more than any time in the past. We're going to keep on doing that. I don't know, I was a little disappointed in Magic, because he came to me and I said, "Now, if you see something we're not doing, get ahold of me, call me, let me know." He went to one meeting, and then we heard that he was stepping down. So he's been replaced by Mary Fisher, who electrified the Republican Convention by talking about the compassion and the concern that we feel. It was a beautiful moment. And I think she'll do a first-class job on that Commission. So I think the appeal is, yes, we care. The other thing is, part of AIDS, it's one of the few diseases where behavior matters. And I once called on somebody, "Well, change your behavior. If the behavior you're using is prone to cause AIDS, change the behavior." The next thing I know, one of these ACT-UP groups is out saying, "Bush ought to change his behavior." You can't talk about it rationally. The extremes are hurting the AIDS cause. To go into a Catholic mass in a beautiful cathedral in New York under the cause of helping in AIDS and start throwing condoms around in the mass, I'm sorry, I think it sets back the cause. We cannot move to the extreme. We've got to care. We've got to continue everything we can at the Federal and the local level. Barbara, I think, is doing a superb job in destroying the myth about AIDS. All of us are in this fight together. All of us care. Do not go to the extreme. Mr. Lehrer. One minute, Mr. Perot. Mr. Perot. First, I think Mary Fisher was a great choice. We're lucky to have her heading the Commission. Secondly, I think one thing, that if I were sent to do the job, I would sit down with FDA, look exactly where we are. Then I would really focus on let's get these things out. If you're going to die, you don't have to go through this 10-year cycle that FDA goes through on new drugs. Believe me, people with AIDS are more than willing to take that risk. We could be moving out to the human population a whole lot faster than we are on some of these new drugs. So I think we can expedite the problem there. Let me go back a minute to racial divisiveness. All-time low in our country was the Judge Thomas-Anita Hill hearings, and those Senators ought to be hanging their heads in shame for what they did there. Second thing, there are not many times in your life when you get to talk to a whole country, but let me just say this to all of America: If you hate people, I don't want your vote. That's how strongly I feel about it. Mr. Lehrer. Governor Clinton, one minute. Governor Clinton. Over 150,000 Americans have died of AIDS. Well over a million and a quarter Americans are HIV-positive. We need to put one person in charge of the battle against AIDS to cut across all the agencies that deal with it. We need to accelerate the drug approval process. We need to fully fund the act named for that wonderful boy, Ryan White, to make sure we're doing everything we can on research and treatment. The President should lead a national effort to change behavior to keep our children alive in the schools, responsible behavior to keep people alive. This is a matter of life and death. I've worked in my State to reduce teen pregnancy and illness among children. And I know it's tough. The reason Magic Johnson resigned from the AIDS Commission is because the statement you heard tonight from Mr. Bush is the longest and best statement he's made about it in public. I'm proud of what we did at the Democratic Convention, putting two HIV-positive people on the platform, and I'm proud of the leadership that I'm going to bring to this country in dealing with the AIDS crisis. Mr. Lehrer. New question for Mr. Perot. You have 2 minutes to answer, and Ann will ask it. Entitlement Programs Ms. Compton. Mr. Perot, even if you've got what people say are the guts to take on changes in the most popular and the most sacred of the entitlements, Medicare, people say you haven't a prayer of actually getting anything passed in Washington. Since the President isn't a Lone Ranger, how in the world can you make some of those unpopular changes? Mr. Perot. Two ways. Number one, if I get there, it will be a very unusual and historical event because -- [laughter] -- because the people, not the special interests, put me there. I will have a unique mandate. I have said again and again, and this really upsets the establishment in Washington, that we're going to inform the people in detail on the issues through an electronic town hall so that they really know what's going on. They will want to do what's good for our country. Now, all these fellows with thousand-dollar suits and alligator shoes running up and down the Halls of Congress that make policy now, the lobbyists, the PAC guys, the foreign lobbyists, what have you, they'll be over there in the Smithsonian -- [laughter] -- because we're going to get rid of them. The Congress will be listening to the people. And the American people are willing to have fair, shared sacrifice. They're not as stupid as Washington thinks they are. The American people are bright, intelligent, caring, loving people who want a great country for their children and grandchildren. They will make those sacrifices. So I welcome that challenge. And just watch, because if the American people send me there, we'll get it done. Now, everybody will faint in Washington. They've never seen anything happen in that town. [Laughter] This is a town where the White House says, "Congress did it." Congress says, "The White House did it." And I'm sitting there and saying, "Well, who else could be around?" And then when they get off by themselves, they said, "Nobody did it." [Laughter] And yet, the cash register is empty. And it used to have our money, the taxpayers' money, in it, and we didn't get the results. We'll get it done. Mr. Lehrer. Governor, one minute. Governor Clinton. Ross, that's a great speech, but it's not quite that simple. [Laughter] I mean, look at the facts. Both parties in Washington, the President and the Congress, have cut Medicare. The average senior citizen is spending a higher percentage of income on health care today than they were in 1965 before Medicare came in. The President's got another proposal to require them to pay $400 a year more for the next 5 years. But if you don't have the guts to control cost by changing the insurance system and taking on the bureaucracies and the regulation of health care in the private and public sector, you can't fix this problem. Costs will continue to spiral. Just remember this, folks: A lot of folks on Medicare are out there every day making the choice between food and medicine. Not poor enough for Medicare, Medicaid; not wealthy enough to buy their medicine. I've met them, people like Mary Annie and Edward Davis of Nashua, New Hampshire, all over this country. They cannot even buy medicine. So let's be careful. When we talk about cutting health care costs, let's start with the insurance companies and the people that are making a killing instead of making our people healthy. Mr. Lehrer. One minute, President Bush. President Bush. Well, first place I'd like to clear up something, because every 4 years the Democrats go around and say, "Hey, Republicans are going to cut Social Security and Medicare." They've started it again. I am the President that stood up and said, "Don't mess with Social Security." And I'm not going to, and we haven't. We are not going to go after the Social Security recipient. I have one difference with Mr. Perot on that because I don't think we need to touch Social Security. What we do need to do, though, is control the growth of these mandatory programs. And Ross properly says, "Okay, there's some pain in that." But Governor Clinton refuses to touch that, simply refuses. So what we've got to do is control it, the growth. Let it grow for inflation; let it grow for the amount of new people added, population. And then hold the line. I believe that is the way you get the deficit down, not by the tax-and-spend program that we hear every 4 years, whether it's Mondale, Dukakis, whoever else it is. I just don't believe we ought to do that. So hold the line on Social Security, and put a cap on the growth of the mandatory program. Mr. Lehrer. New question. It is for Governor Clinton, 2-minute answer. Sandy will ask it. Health Care Costs Mr. Vanocur. Governor Clinton, Ann Compton has brought up Medicare. I remember in 1965 when Wilbur Mills of Arkansas, the chairman of Ways and Means, was pushing it through the Congress. The charge against it was it's socialized medicine. One, you never -- -- Governor Clinton. Mr. Bush made that charge. Mr. Vanocur. Well, he served with him 2 years later in 1967 where I first met him. The second point, though, is that it is now skyrocketing out of control. People want it; we say it's going bonkers. Is not the Oregon plan, applied to Medicaid rationing, the proper way to go, even though the Federal Government last August ruled that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990? Governor Clinton. I thought the Oregon plan should at least have been allowed to be tried because at least the people in Oregon were trying to do something. Let me go back to the main point, Sandy. Mr. Bush is trying to run against Lyndon Johnson and Jimmy Carter and everybody in the world but me in this race. I have proposed a managed competition plan for health care. I will say again: You cannot control health care costs simply by cutting Medicare. Look what's happened. The Federal Government has cut Medicare and Medicaid in the last few years. States have cut Medicaid; we've done it in Arkansas under budget pressures. But what happens? More and more people get on the rolls as poverty increases. If you don't control the health care costs of the entire system, you cannot get control of it. Look at our program. We've set up a national ceiling on health care costs tied to inflation and population growth set by health care providers, not by the Government. We provide for managed competition, not Government models, in every State, and we control private and public health care costs. Now, just a few days ago, a bipartisan commission of Republicans and Democrats, more Republicans than Democrats, said my plan will save the average family $1,200 a year more than the Bush plan will by the year 2000; $2.2 trillion in the next 12 years; $400 billion a year by the end of this decade. I've got a plan to control health care costs. But you can't just do it by cutting Medicare. You have to take on the insurance companies, the bureaucracies, and you have to have cost controls, yes. But keep in mind, we are spending 30 percent more on health care than any country in the world, any other country. Yet, we have 35 million people uninsured. We have no preventive and primary care. The Oregon plan is a good start if the Federal Government is going to continue to abandon its responsibilities. I say if Germany can cover everybody and keep costs under inflation, if Hawaii can cover 98 percent of their people at lower health care costs than the rest of us, if Rochester, New York, can do it with two-thirds of the cost of the rest of us, America can do it, too. I'm tried of being told we can't. I say we can. We can do better, and we must. Mr. Lehrer. President Bush, one minute. President Bush. Well, I don't have time in 30 seconds or one minute to talk about our health care reform plan. The Oregon plan made some good sense, but it's easy to dismiss the concerns of the disabled. As President, I have to be sure that those waivers which we're approving all over the place are covered under the law. Maybe we can work it out. But the Americans for Disabilities Act, speaking about sound and sensible civil rights legislation, was the foremost piece of legislation passed in modern times. So we do have something more than a technical problem. Governor Clinton clicked off the things: You've got to take on insurance companies and bureaucracies. He failed to take on somebody else, the malpractice suit people, those that bring these lawsuits against -- these frivolous trial lawyers' lawsuits that are running costs of medical care up by $25 billion to $50 billion. He refuses to put anything -- controls on these crazy lawsuits. If you want to help somebody, don't run the costs up by making doctors have to have five or six tests where one would do for fear of being sued, or have somebody along the highway not stop to pick up a guy and help him because he's afraid a trial lawyer will come along and sue him. We're suing each other too much and caring for each other too little. Mr. Lehrer. Mr. Perot, one minute. Mr. Perot. We've got the most expensive health care system in the world. It ranks behind 15 other nations when we come to life expectancy and 22 other nations when we come to infant mortality. So we don't have the best. Pretty simple, folks, if you're paying more and you don't have the best, if all else fails go copy the people who have the best who spend less, right? But we can do better than that. Again, we've got plans lying all over the place in Washington. Nobody ever implements them. Now I'm back to square one: If you want to stop talking about it and do it, then I'll be glad to go up there and we'll get it done. But if you just want to keep the music going, just stay traditional this next time around, and 4 years from now you'll have everybody blaming everybody else for a bad health care system. Talk is cheap. Words are plentiful. Deeds are precious. Let's get on with it. Mr. Lehrer. And that's exactly what we're going to do. That was, in fact, the final question and answer. We're now going to move to closing statements. Each candidate will have up to 2 minutes. The order, remember, was determined by a drawing. And Mr. Perot, you were first. Closing Statements Mr. Perot. Well, it's been a privilege to be able to talk to the American people tonight. I make no bones about it: I love this country. I love the principle it's founded on. I love the people here. I don't like to see the country's principles violated. I don't like to see the people in a deteriorating economy and a deteriorating country because our Government has lost touch with the people. The people in Washington are good people; we just have a bad system. We've got to change the system. It's time to do it because we have run up so much debt that time is no longer our friend. We've got to put our house in order. When you go to bed tonight, look at your children. Think of their dreams. Think of your dreams as a child. And ask yourself, "Isn't it time to stop talking about it? Isn't it time to stop creating images? Isn't it time to do it?" Aren't you sick of being treated like an unprogrammed robot? Every 4 years they send you all kinds of messages to tell you how to vote and then go back to business as usual. They told you at the tax and budget summit that if you agreed to a tax increase, we could balance the budget. They didn't tell you that that same year they increased spending $1.83 for every dollar we increased taxes. That's Washington in a nutshell right there. In the final analysis, I'm doing this for your children, when you look at them tonight. There's another group that I feel very close to, and these are the men and women who fought on the battlefield, the children, the families of the ones who died, the people who left parts of their bodies over there. I'd never ask you to do anything for me, but I owe you this, and I'm doing it for you. I can't tell you what it means to me at these rallies when I see you and you come up, and the look in your eyes. I know how you feel, and you know how I feel. And then I think of the older people who are retired. They grew up in the Depression. They fought and won World War II. We owe you a debt we can never repay you. And the greatest repayment I can ever give is to recreate the American dream for your children and grandchildren. I'll give it everything I have if you want me to do it. Mr. Lehrer. Governor Clinton, your closing statement. Governor Clinton. I'd like to thank the people of St. Louis and Washington University, the Presidential Debate Commission, and all those who made this night possible. And I'd like to thank those of you who are watching. Most of all, I'd like to thank all of you who have touched me in some way over this last year, all the thousands of you whom I've seen. I'd like to thank the computer executives and the electronics executives in Silicon Valley, two-thirds of whom are Republicans, who said they wanted to sign on to a change to create a new America. I'd like to thank the hundreds of executives who came to Chicago, a third of them Republicans, who said they wanted a change. I'd like to thank the people who started with Mr. Perot who have come on to help our campaign. I'd like to thank all the folks around America that no one ever knows about: the woman who was holding the AIDS baby she adopted in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, who asked me to do something more for adoption; the woman who stopped along the road in Wisconsin and wept because her husband had lost his job after 27 years; all the people who are having a tough time; and the people who are winning, but who know how desperately we need to change. This debate tonight has made crystal clear a challenge that is as old as America: the choice between hope and fear, change or more of the same; the courage to move into a new tomorrow or to listen to the crowd who says, "Things could be worse." Mr. Bush has said some very compelling things tonight that don't quite square with the record. He was President for 3 years before he proposed a health care plan that still hasn't been sent to Congress in total; 3 years before an economic plan; and he still didn't say tonight that that tax bill he vetoed raised taxes only on the rich and gave the rest of you a break, but he vetoed it anyway. I offer a new direction: Invest in American jobs, American education, control health care costs, bring this country together again. I want the future of this country to be as bright and brilliant as its past, and it can be if we have the courage to change. Mr. Lehrer. President Bush, your closing statement. President Bush. Well, let me tell you a little what it's like to be President. In the Oval Office, you can't predict what kind of crisis is going to come up. You have to make tough calls. You can't be on one hand this way and one hand another. You can't take different positions on these difficult issues. Then you need a philosophical -- I'd call it a philosophical underpinning; mine for foreign affairs is democracy and freedom. Look at the dramatic changes around the world. The cold war is over. The Soviet Union is no more, and we're working with a democratic country. Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Baltics are free. Take a look at the Middle East. We had to stand up against a tyrant. The United States came together as we haven't in many, many years. We kicked this man out of Kuwait. In the process, as a result of that will and that decision and that toughness, we now have ancient enemies talking peace in the Middle East. Nobody would have dreamed it possible. I think the biggest dividend of making these tough calls is the fact that we are less afraid of nuclear war. Every parent out there has much less worry that their kids are going to be faced with nuclear holocaust. All this is good. On the domestic side, what we must do is have change that empowers people, not change for the sake of change, tax and spend. We don't need to do that anymore. What we need to do is empower people. We need to invest and save. We need to do better in education. We need to do better in job retraining. We need to expand our exports, and they're going very, very well indeed. We need to strengthen the American family. I hope as President that I've earned your trust. I've admitted it when I make a mistake, but then I go on and help try to solve the problems. I hope I've earned your trust, because a lot of being President is about trust and character. And I ask for your support for 4 more years to finish this job. Thank you very, very much. Mr. Lehrer. Don't go away yet. I just want to thank the three panelists and thank the three candidates for participating, President Bush, Governor Clinton, and Mr. Perot. They will appear again together on October the 15th and again on October 19th. Next Tuesday there will be a debate among the three candidates for Vice President. And for now, from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night. Note: The debate began at 6:03 p.m. in the Field House at Washington University. George Bush, Presidential Debate in St. Louis Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/217078

October 13, 1992 HAL BRUNO: Good evening from Atlanta and welcome to the vice presidential debate sponsored by the Nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates. It's being held here in the Theater for the Arts on the campus of Georgia Tech. I'm Hal Bruno from ABC News and I'm going to be moderating tonight's debate. The participants are Republican Vice President Dan Quayle. (APPLAUSE) Democratic Senator Al Gore. (APPLAUSE) And retired Vice Admiral James Stockdale, who is the vice presidential nominee -- (APPLAUSE) -- for independent candidate Ross Perot. (APPLAUSE) Now, the ground rules for tonight's debate. Each candidate will have 2 minutes for an opening statement. I will then present the issues to be discussed. For each topic, the candidates will have a minute and 15 seconds to respond. Then this will be followed by a 5 minute discussion period in which they can ask questions of each other if they so choose. Now, the order of response has been determined by a drawing and we'll rotate with each topic. At the end of the debate, each candidate will have 2 minutes for a closing statement. Our radio and TV audience should know that the candidates were given an equal allocation of auditorium seats for their supporters. So I'd like to ask the audience here in the theater to please refrain from applause or any partisan demonstration once the debate is under way because it takes time away from the candidates. So with that plea from your moderator let's get started. And we'll turn first to Senator Gore for his opening statement. SENATOR GORE: Good evening. It's great to be here in Atlanta for this debate where America will be showcases to the world when the 1996 Olympics are put on right here. It's appropriate because in a real sense, our discussion this evening will be about what kind of nation we want to be 4 years from now. It's also a pleasure to be with my 2 opponents this evening. Admiral Stockdale, may I say it's a special honor to share this stage with you. Those of us who served in Vietnam looked at you as a national hero even before you were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. And Mr. Vice President -- Dan, if I may -- it was 16 years ago that you and I went to the Congress on the very first day together. I'll make you a deal this evening. If you don't try to compare George Bush to Harry Truman, I won't compare you to Jack Kennedy. (APPLAUSE) Harry Truman -- VICE PRESIDENT QUAYLE: Do you remember the last time someone compared themselves to Jack Kennedy? Do you remember what they said? GORE: Harry Truman, it's worth remembering, assumed the presidency when Franklin Roosevelt died here in Georgia -- only one of many occasions when fate thrust a vice president into the Oval Office in a time of crisis. It's something to think about during the debate this evening. But our real discussion is going to be about change. Bill Clinton and I stand for change because we don't believe our nation can stand 4 more years of what we've had under George Bush and Dan Quayle. When the recession came they were like a deer caught in the headlights -- paralyzed into inaction, blinded to the suffering and pain of bankruptcies and people who were unemployed. We have an environmental crisis, a health insurance crisis, substandard education. It is time for a change. Bill Clinton and I want to get our country moving forward again, put our people back to work, and create a bright future for the US of America. BRUNO: Okay, the next statement will be from Vice President Quayle. QUAYLE: Well, thank you, Senator Gore, for reminding me about my performance in the 1988 vice presidential debate. This is 1992, Bill Clinton is running against President George Bush. There are 2 things that I'm going to stress during this debate: one, Bill Clinton's economic plan and his agenda will make matters much, much worse -- he will raise your taxes, he will increase spending, he will make government bigger, jobs will be lost; second, Bill Clinton does not have the strength nor the character to be president of the US. (APPLAUSE) Let us look at the agendas. President Bush wants to hold the line on taxes, Bill Clinton wants to raise taxes. President Bush is for a balanced budget amendment, Bill Clinton is opposed to it. We want to reform the legal system because it's too costly, Bill Clinton wants the status quo. We want to reform the health care system, Bill Clinton wants to ration health care. Bill Clinton wants to empower government, we want to empower people. In St. Louis, Missouri, in June of this year, Bill Clinton said this: "America is the mockery of the world." He is wrong. At some time during these next 4 years there is going to be a crisis -- there will be an international crisis. I can't tell you where it's going to be, I can't even tell you the circumstances -- but it will happen. We need a president who has the experience, who has been tested, who has the integrity and qualifications to handle the crisis. The president has been tested, the president has the integrity and the character. The choice is yours. You need to have a president you can trust. Can you really trust Bill Clinton? BRUNO: Admiral Stockdale, your opening statement, please, sir? ADMIRAL STOCKDALE: Who am I? Why am I here? (Laughter and applause) I'm not a politician -- everybody knows that. So don't expect me to use the language of the Washington insider. Thirty-seven years in the Navy, and only one of them up there in Washington. And now I'm an academic. The centerpiece of my life was the Vietnam War. I was there the day it started. I led the first bombing raid against North Vietnam. I was there the day it ended, and I was there for everything in between. Ten years in Vietnam, aerial combat, and torture. I know things about the Vietnam War better than anybody in the world. I know some things about the Vietnam War better than anybody in the world. And I know how governments, how American governments can be -- can be courageous, and how they can be callow. And that's important. That's one thing I'm an insider on. I was the leader of the underground of the American pilots who were shot down in prison in North Vietnam. You should know that the American character displayed in those dungeons by those fine men was a thing of beauty. I look back on those years as the beginning of wisdom, learning everything a man can learn about the vulnerabilities and the strengths that are ours as Americans. Why am I here tonight? I am here because I have in my brain and in my heart what it takes to lead America through tough times. BRUNO: Thank you, Admiral. I thought since you're running for vice president, that we ought to start off by talking about the vice presidency itself. The vice president presides over the Senate, he casts a deciding vote in case of a tie, but his role really depends on the assignments that are given to him by the president. However, if a president should die in office, or is unable to serve for any other reason, the vice president automatically becomes president, and that has happened 5 times in this century. So the proposition I put on the table for you to discuss is this. What role would each of you like to play as vice president, what areas interest you, and what are your qualifications to serve as president, if necessary? In the case of Vice President Quayle, who we're starting with, I suppose you'd tell us the role that you did play in the first term and which you'd like to do in a 2nd term. Go ahead, sir. QUAYLE: Well, then I won't give you that answer. Qualifications. I've been there, Hal. I've done the job. I've been tested. I've been vice president for 4 years. Senator Gore referred to us being elected to the Congress together in 1976. I've done the job. I've done many things for the president. But even as vice president you never know exactly what your role is going to be from time to time, and let me just give you an example of where I was tested under fire and in a crisis. President Bush was flying to Malta in 1989 to meet with President Gorbachev. It was the first meeting between President Bush and President Gorbachev. They had known each other before. A coup broke out in the Philippines. I had to go to the situation room. I had to assemble the president's advisers. I talked to President Aquino. I made the recommendation to the president. The president made the decision, the coup was suppressed, democracy continued in the Philippines, the situation was ended. I've been there. And I'll tell you one other thing that qualifies you for being president -- and it's this, Hal -- you've got to stand up for what you believe in. And nobody has ever criticized me for not having strong beliefs. (APPLAUSE.) BRUNO: Admiral Stockdale. STOCKDALE: My association with Mr. Perot is a very personal one and as I have stood in and finally taken his running mate position, he has granted me total autonomy. I don't take advantage of it, but I am sure that he would make me a partner in decision, in making decisions about the way to handle health care, the way to get this economy back on its feet again, in every way. I have not had the experience of these gentlemen, but -- to be any more specific -- but I know I have his trust, and I intend to act in a way to keep that situation alive. Thank you. BRUNO: Senator Gore. GORE: Bill Clinton understands the meaning of the words "teamwork" and "partnership." If we're successful in our efforts to gain your trust and lead this nation, we will work together to put our country back on the right track again. The experience that George Bush and Dan Quayle have been talking about includes the worst economic performance since the Great Depression. Unemployment is up, personal income is down, bankruptcies are up, housing starts are down. How long can we continue with trickle-down economics when the record of failure is so abundantly clear? Discussions of the vice presidency tend sometimes to focus on the crisis during which a vice president is thrust into the Oval Office, and indeed, one-3rd of the vice presidents who have served have been moved into the White House. But the teamwork and partnership beforehand -- and hopefully that situation never happens -- how you work together is critically important. The way we work together in this campaign is one sample. Now I'd like to say in response to Vice President Quayle- -he talked about Malta and the Philippines. George Bush has concentrated on every other country in the world. When are you guys going to start worrying about our people here in the US of America and get our country moving again? (APPLAUSE) BRUNO: Again, I will ask the audience: please do not applaud, it takes time from the candidates. All right, now we have 5 minutes for discussion. Go ahead, Vice President Quayle. QUAYLE: The answer to that is very simple: we are not going to raise taxes to create new jobs, we have a plan to create new jobs. But that wasn't the question. The question dealt with qualifications. Teamwork and partnership may be fine in the Congress, Senator Gore -- that's what Congress is all about, compromise, teamwork, working things out. But when you're president of the US or when you're vice president and you have to fill in like I did the night of the crisis in the Philippines, you've got to make a decision, you've got to make up your mind. Bill Clinton, running for president of the US, said this about the Persian Gulf war. He said: "Had I been in the Senate, I would have voted with the majority, if it was a close vote. But I agreed with the arguments of the minority." You can't have it both ways, you have to make a decision. You cannot sit there in an international crisis -- (APPLAUSE) -- and sit there and say, well, on the one hand, this is okay, and, on the other hand, this is okay. You've got to make the decision. President Bush has made the decisions; he's been tested, he's got the experience, he's got the qualification, he's got the integrity to be our president for the next 4 years. BRUNO: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Admiral Stockdale, it's your turn to respond next, and then Senator Gore will have his chance to respond. STOCKDALE: Okay. I thought this was just an open session, this 5-minute thing, and I didn't have anything to add to his. But I will -- GORE: Well, I'll jump in if you don't want -- (Laughter) QUAYLE: I thought anyone could jump in whenever they wanted to. BRUNO: Okay, whatever pleases you gentlemen is fine with me. You're the candidates. QUAYLE: But I want Admiral Stockdale's time. (Laughter and applause) BRUNO: This is not the Senate, where you can trade off time. Go ahead, Senator Gore. GORE: I'll let you all figure out the rules, I've got some points that I want to make here, and I still haven't gotten an answer to my question on when you guys are going to start worrying about this country, but I want to elaborate on it before -- QUAYLE: Why doesn't the Democratic Congress -- why doesn't the Democratic Congress -- BRUNO: Mr. Vice President, let him say his thoughts, and then you can come in. GORE: I was very patient in letting you get off that string of attacks. We've been listening to -- QUAYLE: Good points. GORE: -- trickle-down economics for 12 years now, and you all still support trickle-down to the very last drop. And, you know, talking about this point of concentrating on every other country in the world as opposed to the people of our country right here at home, when George Bush took former Secretary of State Baker out of the State Dept and put him in charge of the campaign and made him chief of staff in the White, Mr. Baker, who's quite a capable man, said that for these last 4 years George Bush was working on the problems of the rest of the world and in the next 4 years he would target America. Well, I want you to know we really appreciate that. But Bill Clinton and I will target America from day one. We won't wait 4 years before we concentrate on the problems in this country. He went on to say that it's really amazing what George Bush can do when he concentrates. Well, it's time that we had a president like Bill Clinton who can concentrate and will concentrate and work on the problems of real people in this country. You know, our country is in trouble. We simply cannot continue with this philosophy of giving huge tax cuts to the very wealthy, raising taxes on middle income families the way Bush and Quayle have done and then waiting for it to work. How much longer will it take, Dan, for trickle down economics to work, in your theory? QUAYLE: Well, we're going to have plenty of time to talk about trickle down government, which you're for. But the question -- GORE: Well, I'd like to hear the answer. QUAYLE: But the question is -- the question is -- and which you have failed to address, and that is, why is Bill Clinton qualified to be president of the US. You've talked about -- GORE: Oh, I'll be happy to answer that question -- QUAYLE: You've talked about Jim Baker. You've talked about trickle down economics. You've talked about the worst economy- BRUNO: Now, wait a minute. The question was about -- QUAYLE: -- in 50 years. GORE: I'll be happy to answer those. May I answer -- QUAYLE: Why is he qualified to be president of the US? GORE: I'll be happy to -- QUAYLE: I want to go back and make a point -- GORE: Well, you've asked me the question. If you won't answer my question I will answer yours. QUAYLE: I have not asked you a question. I've made a statement, that you have not told us why Bill Clinton is qualified to be president of the US. I pointed out what he said about the Persian Gulf War. But let me repeat it for you. Here's what he said, Senator. You know full well what he said. GORE: You want me to answer your question? QUAYLE: I'm making a statement. Then you can answer it. BRUNO: Can we give Admiral Stockdale a chance to come in, please -- (APPLAUSE) And again, audience -- (Simultaneous conversation) QUAYLE: (Inaudible) here's what he said. I mean, this is the Persian Gulf War -- the most important event in his political lifetime and here's what Bill Clinton says. If it's a close vote, I'd vote with the majority. BRUNO: Let's give Admiral Stockdale a chance to come in. QUAYLE: But he was the minority. That qualifies you for being president of the US. I hope America is listening very closely to this debate tonight. STOCKDALE: And I think America is seeing right now the reason this nation is in gridlock. (Laughter, applause) The trickle downs and the tax and spends, or whatever you want to call them are at swords points. We can't get this economy going. Over here we've got Dan whose president is going to take 8 years to balance the budget and on my left, the senator, whose boss is going to get it half way balanced in 4 years. Ross Perot has got a plan to balance the budget 5 years in length from start to finish. And we're -- people of the non-professional category who are just sick of this terrible thing that's happened to the country. And we've got a man who knows how to fix it, and I'm working for him. (APPLAUSE) BRUNO: I was a little bit worried that there might not be a free flowing discussion tonight. (Laughter) Let's move on to the economy. Specifically the economy was talked about at great length the other night in the presidential debate. Let's talk about a very particular aspect of the economy and that is, getting people back to work. For the average person, the great fear is losing his or her job and many Americans have lost jobs in this recession, which also means the loss of benefits, the loss of a home, the destruction of a family's security. Specifically, how would your administration go about getting people back to work and how long is it going to take? And we start with Admiral Stockdale. STOCKDALE: The lifeblood of our economy is investment. And right now when we pay $350 -- we borrow $350 billion a year it saps the money markets and the private investors are not getting their share. What we do is work on that budget by an aggressive program, not a painful program, so that we can start borrowing less money and getting more investment money on the street through entrepreneurs who can build factories, who will hire people, and maybe we'll start manufacturing goods here in this country again. That's -- that's my answer. BRUNO: Okay. Senator Gore. GORE: Bill Clinton's top priority is putting America back to work. Bill Clinton and I will create good, high-wage jobs for our people, the same way he has done in his state. Bill Clinton has created high-wage manufacturing jobs at 10 times the national average and in fact according to the statistics coming from the Bush-Quayle Labor Dept, for the last 2 years in a role Bill Clinton's state has been number one among all 50 in the creation of jobs in the private sector. By contrast, in the nation as a whole, during the last 4 years, it is the first time since the presidency of Herbert Hoover, that we have gone for a 4-year period with fewer jobs at the end of that 4-year period than we had at the beginning. And look at manufacturing. We have lost 1.4 million jobs in manufacturing under George Bush and Dan Quayle. They have even -- we learned 2 weeks ago -- taken our tax dollars and subsidized the moving of US factories to foreign countries. Now don't deny it because 60 Minutes and Nightline and the nation's newspapers have investigated this very carefully. (Laughter.) When are you going to stop using our tax dollars to shut down American factories and move 'em to foreign countries and throw Americans out of work? BRUNO: Vice President Quayle. QUAYLE: Senator, don't always believe what you see on television. (APPLAUSE.) Let me tell you: the media have been wrong before. We have never subsidized any country -- or any company to move from the US to Latin America. You know full well the Caribbean Basin Initiative, you've supported that. GORE: No. QUAYLE: That is a program there -- GORE: I voted against it. QUAYLE: You voted for it and your record -- GORE: No. QUAYLE: Okay. Well, we'll -- we'll have a lot of interesting debate after this debate. Our people will be glad to furnish the press, if they're interested, in Senator Gore's voting record on the Caribbean Basin Initiative. But let's talk -- you know, you keep talking about trickle-down economics and all this stuff, about the worst economy since Hoover. It is a bad economy. It's a tough economy. The question isn't -- it's now who you're going to blame; what are you going to do about it? Your proposal it so raise $150 billion in taxes. To raise $220 billion in new spending. GORE: No. QUAYLE: How is raising taxes going to help small business? How is raising taxes going to help the farmer? How is raising taxes going to help the consumer in America? I submit to you that raising taxes will make matters much, much worse. (APPLAUSE.) BRUNO: Admiral. We now throw it open for discussion. Admiral Stockdale, it's your turn to start the discussion. STOCKDALE: Well, we've got to re -- we've got to clean out the barn, if I may quote my boss, and start getting this investment money on the street so we can get, and encourage entrepreneurs to build factories. We -- the program is out there. It's a put-together thing that requires some sacrifice, but not excessive, and we are willing to move forward in -- on a 5-year clip to put us back where we can start over and get -- get this nation straightened out. BRUNO: Senator Gore, getting people back to work. GORE: Well, the difference between the Perot- Stockdale plan and the Clinton-Gore plan is that Ross Perot's plan concentrates almost exclusively on balancing the budget and reducing the budget deficit, and the danger is that if that is the only goal it could throw our nation back into an even worse recession. Bill Clinton and I have a detailed 5-year budget plan to create good jobs, cut the budget deficit in half, and eliminate the investment deficit in order to get our economy moving forward again. We have a $20-billion infrastructure fund to create a nationwide network of high-speed rail, for example, and what are called information superhighways to open up a whole universe of knowledge for our young people and to help our universities and companies that rely on new advances in the information revolution. We also have tax incentives for investment in job-creating activities, not the kind of encouragement for short-term rip-offs like the proposal that we have had from George Bush. But I want to return and say one more time: you have used our tax dollars to subsidize the recruitment of US companies to move overseas and throw Americans out of work. In Decaturville, Tennessee, not very far from my home, a factory was shut down right there when they were solicited by officials paid with US taxpayers' money, and then the replacement workers in a foreign country were trained with our tax dollars and then their imports were subsidized coming back into the US. When are you going to stop that program? QUAYLE: We do not have any program that encourages companies to close down here and to go and invest on foreign soil. That is absolutely outrageous. Of course American businesses do have business abroad; we've got global competition. We want businesses to expand. Do you realize this, Senator, that every job that's overseas there's 3 jobs back here to support that. But never have we ever, nor would we, support the idea of someone closing down a factory here and moving overseas. That's just totally ridiculous. GORE: It's going on right now; it happened in Tennessee, in Decaturville, Tennessee. When George Bush went to Nashville, the employees who lost their jobs asked to meet with -- QUAYLE: I want to get back -- GORE: I talked with them. Let me tell you what they're feeling. Some of them are in their 50s and 60s. They want to know where they're going to get new jobs when their jobs have been destroyed. And there are 1.4 million manufacturing jobs that have been lost because of the policies of you and George Bush. Do you seriously believe that we ought to continue the same policies that have created the worst economy since the Great Depression? QUAYLE: I hope that when you talked to those people you said: and the first thing that Bill Clinton and I are going to do is to raise $150 billion in new taxes. GORE: You got that wrong, too. QUAYLE: And the first -- that is part of your plan. GORE: No, it's not. QUAYLE: A hundred and fifty billion dollars in new taxes. Well, you're going to disavow your plan. GORE: Listen, what we're proposing -- QUAYLE: You know what you're doing, you know what you're doing? You're pulling a Clinton. (Laughter) And you know what a Clinton is? And you know what Clinton is? A Clinton is, is what he says -- he says one thing one day and another thing the next day -- you try to have both sides of the issues. The fact of the matter is that you are proposing $150 billion in new taxes. GORE: No. QUAYLE: And I hope that you talk to the people in Tennessee -- GORE: No, we're not. QUAYLE: -- and told them that -- GORE: You can say it all you want but it doesn't make it true. QUAYLE: -- going to have new taxes. I hope you talked to them about the fact that you were going to increase spending to $220 billion. I'm sure what you didn't talk to them about was about how we're going to reform the health care system, like the president wants to do. He wants to go out and to reform the health care system so that every American will have available to them affordable health insurance. I'm sure one other thing that you didn't talk to them about, Senator, and that is legal reform, because your position on legal reform is the status quo. And yet you talk about foreign competition. Why should an American company have to spend 15 to 20 times on product liability and insurance costs compared to a company in Japan or a company in Germany or somewhere else? That's not right. We have product liability reform legislation on Capitol Hill. It will create jobs. And a Democratic Congress won't pass it. (APPLAUSE) BRUNO: Okay. I think it's time to move on to our next topic. All 3 of you gentlemen have some expertise in defense and the armed forces. Vice President Quayle and Senator Gore both served on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Admiral Stockdale, of course, has a very distinguished military career. With the end of the Cold War, everyone agrees that there are going to be major cuts. They've already started in the defense budget. But this country has a long history of neglecting its military needs in peace time and then paying for it with heavy casualties when we're caught unprepared. How much of a defense cut is safe? What happens to the people who are forced to leave the military services, or if they lose their jobs because they're working in defense industries. I think we start with Senator Gore this time. GORE: Bill Clinton and I support a strong national defense. He and I have both fought for change within the Democratic Party as well as within the country. In the aftermath of the Cold War, the definition of strong national defense has obviously changed somewhat. For example, George Bush wants to maintain at least 150,000 American soldiers in Europe, even though World War II ended 50 years ago. Bill Clinton and I agree with so many military experts who believe that it is time for the Europeans, who are so much wealthier now and more powerful than they were at the end of World War II to start picking up a little more of that tab themselves and not rely so exclusively on the US taxpayers for the defense of Europe. We believe that we can make savings in our defense budget and at the same time, improve our national security. Now, for those who are affected by the cutbacks, whether they come from George Bush or Bill Clinton and me -- the difference is, Bill Clinton and I have a defense conversion program so that those who won the Cold War will not be left out in the cold. We want to put them to work building an infrastructure and an economy here in this country for the '90's and the next century. BRUNO: Vice President Quayle. QUAYLE: We won the Cold War because we invested in national security. We won the Cold War because we invested in our military. We didn't win the Cold -- we won the Cold War because we invested in national security. We won the Cold War because we invested in our military. We didn't win the cold -- or we won the Cold War because America had the political will and made the right decisions. Yes, we can make the cuts in defense and we have. Bill Clinton wants to cut defense another $60 billion. I'd say to the defense workers in California and elsewhere, a $60 billion defense cut is going to cut a lot of jobs out. Yes, we are making a conversion and we can go to a civil space rather than having defense -- or the defense industry. Well, let me say this: we would not have won the Cold War if we had listened to Senator Gore and his crowd, and had supported a nuclear freeze. If you would have supported that attitude -- if you would have supported that attitude, we would not have won the Cold War. We won the Cold War because we invested and we went forward. (APPLAUSE.) BRUNO: Mr. -- Admiral Stockdale, please. STOCKDALE: Yes, thanks. The numbers, in terms of the dollar cuts, as they stand on our plans now, show us almost the same as the vice president's. But we'd note that Mr. -- Governor Clinton's plan is almost twice as much a cut as either one of us. I've been through the end of World War II, and the surprise beginning of Korea, to see how we -- it cost us more money because we overcut the defense budget in the first place. I don't say that -- (APPLAUSE.) So I think that should be eyed with great suspicion, people that are really kicking the props out from under our grand military establishment prematurely. Now there's other differences between the Perot approach and what we see up here on either side of me, and that has to do with we want to focus our interests, economic and military, more to the Pacific. We figure that we are generally going along with any sort of a troop removal from Europe. So that's still another face of this puzzle. BRUNO: Senator Gore, would you like to start the discussion period on this topic? GORE: Yeah, I'd like to respond first to you, Admiral Stockdale. Under the details of our 5-year budget plan, we do propose more in defense cuts than George Bush and Dan Quayle, but only 5 % more. Admiral Crowe, who I think was one of your classmates in Annapolis -- STOCKDALE: Oh, yes, I've known him -- GORE: -- has endorsed -- STOCKDALE: -- 50 years. GORE: -- the military portions of our plan, even though he was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs under George Bush, and John White has endorsed the economic aspects of our plan, even though I believe he was the architect of Ross Perot's economic plan. Now when I heard George Bush say at the convention in Houston, that when he heard the phrase "we won the Cold War," it made him wonder who the "we" was. Well, I want to tell you, President Bush, the "we" is the people of the US of America. This wasn't a partisan victory that came suddenly, a few months after you took the oath of office. This started with Harry Truman and it was a bipartisan effort from the very beginning. George Bush taking credit for the Berlin Wall coming down is like the rooster taking credit for the sunrise. (APPLAUSE.) And I want to, I want to add -- I want to add one other thing, because in the debate a few nights ago, I think President Bush made a very serious misstatement of fact in response to Ross Perot. It was kind of a little lecture he gave to Ross Perot when he said those SS-18s are gone, Ross, that's done. He -- he reached a deal with Boris Yeltsin to completely remove them so we can all sleep safely without any fear tonight. But you know what? They thought they were going to get that deal, but when he took the person in charge of the negotiations out of the State Dept and put him in charge of the reelection campaign, the deal unraveled and now there is no START II deal at all. In fact there are serious problems. Isn't it a fact, Dan, that every single one of those SS-18s is still there, in the silos, and under the START I treaty, only half of the silos are supposed to be dismantled, and there is no deal to get rid of the other half? Didn't the president make a mistake there? BRUNO: Vice President Quayle, please. QUAYLE: The president does have a commitment from Boris Yeltsin to eliminate the SS-18s. That is a commitment to -- GORE: Is it an agreement? QUAYLE: It is a commitment. GORE: Oh. (Laughter) QUAYLE: Let's talk about, let's talk about -- GORE: Well, he said he'd -- BRUNO: Let him talk, Senator. QUAYLE: Lighten up here, Al. (Laughter and applause) BRUNO: Go ahead. QUAYLE: Let's talk about getting agreements. You know, the president of the US doesn't just negotiate with your friends in Congress; the president of the US deals on the international scene. He's got to deal with the president of Russia, he's got to deal with the chancellor of Germany, the prime minister of Britain, the president of France, the prime minister of Japan -- he's got to deal with a whole host of leaders around the world. And the leaders sit down and they will negotiate, and they will come to agreements with people that they trust. And this is a fundamental problem with Bill Clinton, is trust and character. It is not the issue of how he avoided military service 20-some years ago; it's the fact -- it's the fact that he does not tell the truth about it. He first said he didn't get an induction notice, then we find out that he did; he said he didn't have an ROTC slot, then we find out he did; he said he didn't use Senator Fulbright's office for special influence, then we find out that he did. These are inconsistencies. Bill Clinton has trouble telling the truth. And he will have a very difficult time dealing with somebody like President Yeltsin or Chancellor Kohl or Prime Minister Major or President Mitterrand, because truth and integrity are prerequisites to being president of the US. (APPLAUSE) GORE: I want to respond to that, I want to respond to that. George Bush, in case you've forgotten, Dan, said "Read my lips -- no new taxes." (Laughter and applause) And you know what? QUAYLE: I didn't think I was going to hear that tonight. GORE: Hold on, hold on, let me finish. QUAYLE: Okay. GORE: He also said he wanted to be the environmental president; then he went on to say he wanted to be the education president. Then he said that he wouldn't raise taxes again -- no, never, ever, ever. Then the next day his spokesman, Marlin Fitzwater, came out and said that's not a pledge. Then 2 weeks ago he said that after the election, if you win, then James Baker's going to go back to be secretary of state; then a week later, in the debate a few nights ago, he said, no, after the election, if we win, James Baker is going to be in charge of domestic policy. Which is it, Dan? Is he going to -- what's your role in this going to be? (Laughter and applause) BRUNO: Well, we'll have to move on to another topic. QUAYLE: Let me -- BRUNO: Sorry, Mr. Vice President. QUAYLE: I don't have time to respond to that? BRUNO: You'll get plenty of chance to respond, so don't worry. QUAYLE: Okay, you're the moderator. I was under the assumption that when the thing is like that that you get a chance to respond. BRUNO: Well, we ran out of time; according to the agreement, it's time to move on. And I want to stick to the agreement. QUAYLE: Okay. Well, you got the last word on that, but we'll come back to it. BRUNO: But you'll have a chance -- I can see what's happening here: we throw out the topic and then we drift. But that's okay, because I think it's making for a healthy exchange. (Laughter) The only thing I would ask of you -- GORE: I'm enjoying it. (Laughter) BRUNO: The only thing I would ask of you gentlemen is that when we get to the discussion period, whoever talks first be considerate of the others, because you have a tendency to filibuster. QUAYLE: Look over there. (Laughter) BRUNO: Okay, I'm not pointing any fingers. Let's talk about the environment -- we'll get away from controversy. (Laughter) Everyone wants a safe and clean environment, but there's an ongoing conflict between environmental protection and the need for economic growth and jobs. So the point I throw out on the table is, how do you resolve this conflict between protection of the environment and growth in jobs, and why has it taken so long to deal with basic problems, such as toxic waste dumps, clean air and clean water? And, Vice President Quayle, it's your turn to start first. QUAYLE: Hal, that's a false choice. You don't have to have a choice between the environment and jobs -- you can have both. Look at the president's record: clean air legislation passed the Democratic Congress because of the leadership of George Bush. It is the most comprehensive clean air act in our history. We are firmly behind preserving our environment, and we have a good record with which to stand. The question comes about: What is going to be their position when it comes to the environment? I say it's a false choice. You ought to ask somebody in Michigan, a UAW worker in Michigan, if they think increasing the CAFE standards, the fuel economy standards, to 45 miles a gallon is a good idea -- 300,000 people out of work. You ought to talk to the timber people in the Northwest where they say that, well, we can only save the owl, forget about jobs. You ought to talk to the timber people in the northwest, where they say that -- well, we can only save the owl. Forget about jobs. You ought to talk to the coal miners. They're talking about putting a coal tax on. They're talking about a tax on utilities, a tax on gasoline and home heating oil -- all sorts of taxes. No, Hal, the choice isn't the environment and jobs. With the right policies -- prudent policies -- we can have both. (APPLAUSE) BRUNO: Admiral Stockdale. STOCKDALE: I read Senator Gore's book about the environment and I don't see how he could possibly pay for his proposals in today's economic climate. (APPLAUSE) You know, the Marshall Plan of the environment, and so forth. And also, I'm told by some experts that the things that he fears most might not be all that dangerous, according to some scientists. You know, you can overdo, I'm told, environmental cleaning up. If you purify the pond, the water lilies die. You know, I love this planet and I want it to stay here, but I don't like to have it the private property of fanatics that want to overdo this thing. (APPLAUSE) BRUNO: Senator Gore. GORE: Bill Clinton and I believe we can create millions of new jobs by leading the environmental revolution instead of dragging our feet and bringing up the rear. You know, Japan and Germany are both opening proclaiming to the world now that the biggest new market in the history of world business is the market for the new products and technologies that foster economic progress without environmental destruction. Why is the Japanese business organization -- the largest one they have, the Ki Den Ren (phonetic), arguing for tougher environmental standards than those embodied in US law? Why is MITI -- their trade organization -- calling on all Japanese corporations everywhere in the world to exceed by as much as possible the environmental standards of every country in which they're operating? Well, maybe they're just dumb about business competition. But maybe they know something that George Bush and Dan Quayle don't know -- that the future will call for greater efficiency and greater environmental efficiency. This is an issue that touches my basic values. I'm taught in my religious tradition that we are given dominion over the Earth, but we're required to be good stewards of the Earth, and that means to take care of it. We're not doing that now under the Bush-Quayle policies. They have gutted the Clean Air Act. They have broken his pledge to be the environmental president. Bill Clinton and I will change that. (APPLAUSE) BRUNO: Okay. Discussion period now. Again, leave time for each other, please. Vice President Quayle, go ahead. QUAYLE: Well, I'm tempted to yield to Admiral Stockdale on this. But I -- you know, the fact of the matter is that one of the proposals that Senator Gore has suggested is to have the taxpayers of America spend $100 billion a year on environmental projects in foreign countries -- GORE: That's not true -- QUAYLE: Foreign aid -- well, Senator, it's in your book. On page 304 -- GORE: No, it's not. QUAYLE: It is there. (APPLAUSE) It is in your book. You know, Hal, I wanted to bring the Gore book tonight, because I figured he was going to pull a Bill Clinton on me and he has. Because he's going to disavow what's in his book. It's in your book -- GORE: No. QUAYLE: It comes out to $100 billion of foreign aid for environmental projects. BRUNO: All right. Let's give him a chance to answer. QUAYLE: Now, how are we going to pay for it? How are we going to pay for an extra $100 billion of the taxpayers' money for this? GORE: Dan, I appreciate you reading my book very much, but you've got it wrong. QUAYLE: No, I've got it right. GORE: There's no such proposal. QUAYLE: Okay, well, we'll find -- BRUNO: Let him talk, Mr Vice President. Let the senator talk. Go ahead. GORE: There is no such proposal. What I have called upon is a cooperative effort by the US and Europe and Asia to work together in opening up new markets throughout the world for the new technologies that are necessary in order to reconcile the imperatives of economic progress with the imperatives of environmental protection. Take Mexico City for an example. They are shutting down factories right now, not because of their economy, but because they're choking together on the air pollution. They're banning automobiles some days of the week. Now what they want is not new laser-guided missile systems. What they want are new engines and new factories and new products that don't pollute the air and the water, but nevertheless allow them to have a decent standard of living for their people. Last year 35 % of our exports went to developing countries, countries where the population is expanding worldwide by as much as one billion people every ten years. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend that we don't face a global environmental crisis, nor should we assume that it's going to cost jobs. Quite the contrary. We are going to be able to create jobs as Japan and Germany are planning to do right now, if we have the guts to leave. Now earlier we heard about the auto industry and the timber industry. There have been 250,000 jobs lost in the automobile industry during the Reagan-Bush-Quayle years. There have been tens of thousands of jobs lost in the timber industry. What they like to do is point the finger of blame with one hand and hand out pink slips with the other hand. They've done a poor job both with the economy and the environment. (APPLAUSE.) It's time for a change. (APPLAUSE.) BRUNO: Admiral Stockdale, you had something you wanted to say here? STOCKDALE: I know that -- I read where Senator Gore's mentor had disagree with some of the scientific data that is in his book. How do you respond to those criticisms of that sort? Do you -- QUAYLE: Deny it. GORE: Well -- (Laughter.) STOCKDALE: Do you take this into account? (Laughter.) GORE: No, I -- let me respond. Thank you, Admiral, for saying that. You're talking about Roger Revelle. His family wrote a lengthy letter saying how terribly he had been misquoted and had his remarks taken completely out of context just before he died. (Jeers.) He believed up until the day he died -- no, it's true, he died last year -- BRUNO: I'd ask the audience to stop, please. GORE: -- and just before he died, he co- authored an article which was -- had statements taken completely out of context. In fact the vast majority of the world's scientists -- and they have worked on this extensively -- believe that we must have an effort to face up to the problems we face with the environment. And if we just stick out heads in the sand and pretend that it's not real, we're not doing ourselves a favor. Even worse than that, we're telling our children and all future generations that we weren't willing to face up to this obligation. QUAYLE: Hal, can I -- GORE: I believe that we have a mandate -- BRUNO: Sure. We've still got time. GORE: -- to try to solve this problem, particularly when we can do it while we create jobs in the process. BRUNO: Go ahead, Mr Vice President, there's still time. Not much, though. QUAYLE: I know it. We've got to have a little equal time here now, Hal. In the book you also suggest taxes on, gasoline taxes on utilities, taxes on carbon, taxes on timber. There's a whole host of taxes. And I don't just -- I don't believe raising taxes is the way to solve our environmental problems. And you talk about the bad situation in the auto industry. You seem to say that the answer is, well, I'll just make it that much worse by increasing the CAFE standards. Yes, the auto industry is hurting, it's been hurting for a long time, and increasing the CAFE standards to 45 miles per gallon, like you and Bill Clinton are suggesting, will put, as I said, 300,000 people out of work. BRUNO: Okay, let's move on now. I would like to remind the audience of one thing. Trying to stop you from applauding may be a lost cause. I didn't say anything about hissing, but I do think it is discourteous, and there's no call for that, and it reflects badly on the candidate you're supporting. So let's knock that off. Let's go on to health care. Health care protection has become a necessity of life in our society, yet millions of Americans are not ensured and the cost of medical treatment is practically out of control. How do you propose to control these costs and how are you going to provide access to health care for every American? Let's see, whose turn is it to go now? QUAYLE: I think it's Admiral Stockdale's. BRUNO: I think it's Admiral Stockdale's turn to go first. Go ahead, sir. STOCKDALE: Well, we have excellent technical health care, but we don't administer it very well, and the escalating costs top any other budget danger in the -- on the horizon, I think. And what Mr Perot has suggested is that we try to re- -to look at the incentives, the incentives that are in our current way of doing business, are what are killing us. There's -- there's no incentive for a hypochondriac not to go to the -- to Medicare every day. There is no incentive for a doctor to curtail the expensive tests because he's under threat of malpractice lawyers. And so we -- we just have a web of wrong-way incentives that has to be changed by some people who are in the medical profession and some other crafty people who know how to write contracts to change incentives or get -- get the -- the incentives situation under control. BRUNO: Senator Gore. GORE: Bill Clinton and I believe that if a criminal has the right to a lawyer, every American family ought to have the right to see a doctor of their own choosing when they need to see a doctor. There are almost 40 million Americans who work full time today and yet have no health insurance whatsoever. We are proposing to change that, not with a government-run plan, not with new taxes, but with a new approach called managed competition. We are going to provide a standard health insurance package provided by private insurance companies and eliminate the duplication and red tape, and overlap, and we're going to have cost controls to eliminate the unnecessary procedures that are costing so much money today. There was a bipartisan commission evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats who looked at our plan and the Bush-Quayle proposal. They said ours will save tens of billions of dollars and cover every American. The Bush proposal, by contrast, will cost us tens of billions and still leave Americans uninsured. But what I want to know is, why has George Bush waited for 3 and a half years during this health insurance crisis before finally coming out with a proposal, just before the election, and he still hasn't introduced it in Congress. Why the long wait, Dan? BRUNO: Mr Vice President. QUAYLE: Hal, President Bush has had his health care reform agenda on Capitol Hill for 8 months. He's had parts of it up there for years. You talk about increasing costs that the president has had on Capitol Hill- - medical malpractice reform legislation -- for several years. Defensive medicine and health care today cost $20.7 billion. Defense medicine defined as testing and treatment that is only necessary in case of a law suit. Wouldn't that be nice to take $20.7 billion that we're putting into our legal system and put it to preventive health care or women's health care or something else besides trial lawyers? But no -- you don't want to reform the health care system to drive down costs through medical malpractice. What you're doing -- you are talking about a government program. Your program is to ration health care. You said in your statement to see a doctor when you want to see a doctor. When you start rationing health care there's going to be a waiting line to see a doctor unless it's an emergency. Remember when we rationed energy in this country? Waiting lines at the gasoline stations. The same thing would happen when you ration health care. The president's proposal deals with tax credits, deductions and purchasing health care in the private sector and making health care affordable and available to every single American. BRUNO: Admiral Stockdale, would you like to start the discussion period? STOCKDALE: Well, I'm out of ammunition on this -- GORE: Well, let me talk then because I've got a couple of things that I want to say. BRUNO: Go ahead, Senator. GORE: We still didn't get an answer to the question of why George Bush waited for 3 and a half years -- QUAYLE: He didn't wait 3 and a half years. GORE: -- during the national -- QUAYLE: I did answer the question. GORE: -- health insurance crisis before he even made a proposal. And it still hasn't been submitted to Congress in the form of legislation. I also want to respond to the question about malpractice. Do you know which state has the lowest malpractice premiums in the entire country? Bill Clinton's Arkansas does -- partly because he has passed reform measures limiting the time during which malpractice suits can be filed. In fact, tort claims generally have fallen 10 % under Bill Clinton there. But you know, that's not the reason for this health insurance crisis. The reason is, we've had absolutely no leadership. Let me tell you about a friend of mine named Mitch Philpot from Marietta, Georgia -- not far from here -- who Tipper and I met with his family in Johns Hopkins Hospital. Their son, Brett, was in the bed next to our son and they couldn't pay their medical bills. They used to live in Atlanta, but they lost their house. And while they were there, both Mitch and his wife lost their jobs because they could not get unpaid leave. We pass legislation to give family leave under circumstances like that, exempting small business. How can you talk about family values, Dan, and twice veto the Family Medical Leave Act? (APPLAUSE) BRUNO: Mr Vice President. QUAYLE: Pass our Family Leave Act, because it goes to small businesses where the major problem is. Your proposal excluded small business. That's the problem. Now, let me talk about health care and -- GORE: Did you require it? Did you require it? QUAYLE: My turn -- (holding hand up at Gore) GORE: Did you require (inaudible) -- (Simultaneous conversation) QUAYLE: My turn. GORE: It's a free discussion. QUAYLE: Take a breath, Al. Inhale. GORE: It's a free discussion. (APPLAUSE) Did you require family leave in that legislation? Yes or no? QUAYLE: We offered incentives to small businesses. Yes or no -- GORE: That's a no, isn't it? QUAYLE: Was small business exempted under your proposal? GORE: Yes. QUAYLE: Yes. And that's where the biggest problem is -- GORE: Did you require it of anyone? QUAYLE: I'm going to get back to the topic again -- GORE: Did you require it of anyone? QUAYLE: -- because he obviously doesn't want to talk about health insurance or health care, which you address. I was absolutely -- I shouldn't say that -- another Clinton. You pulled another Clinton on me because here you go again. Medical malpractice legislation has been before the Congress of the US and you tried to convince the American people is for tort reform? The biggest campaign contributors to your campaign are the trial lawyers of America. We have a letter -- and we're going to release it again to the media, if the media is interested -- where the head of the trial lawyers of Arkansas said that Bill Clinton was basically in their back pocket, that Bill Clinton has always opposed tort reform of any kind. It's in the letter, we have it, we'll make it available -- because Bill Clinton is not for tort reform. I'd like to know where Bill Clinton stands on health insurance. When he was campaigning in New Hampshire, he said I am for the pay-or-play health insurance. Pay or play, that's a 7 to 9 % payroll tax on every worker in America that participates in this program. GORE: Can I respond? QUAYLE: And then, all of a sudden, this summer he says, oh, I'm not for a pay or play. Here we go again. Bill Clinton, one day he's for pay or play, the next day he's against pay or play. He does it in education. He writes Polly Williams, a Democrat state legislator in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, saying I'm for choice in education; then he goes to the NEA teachers union and says, sorry, I'm not for choice in education because you won't let me be for choice in education. One time Bill Clinton says term limits -- we ought to limit terms, it's ridiculous that a member of Congress can serve for 30, 40, 50 years, and you limit the terms of the president -- but that's another subject. GORE: We're fixing to limit one. (Laughter) QUAYLE: It's not going to be mine; it's going to be people like you and Kennedy and Metzenbaum and George Mitchell and the rest of that Democratic Congress on Capitol Hill -- that's who we're talking about. (APPLAUSE) And that's who the American people -- as you well know, you've got term limits for a president, you don't have term limits for Congress, and I think it's absolutely ridiculous that we don't. GORE: I want to respond to some of this. QUAYLE: Here goes Bill Clinton again: he says, well, term limits, that's an interesting idea, I think I might be in favor of that. Then his Democratic friends in Congress say, no, Bill, you can't be for that. Bill Clinton has trouble telling the truth. GORE: I want to respond, if I might. BRUNO: Go ahead, Senator, quickly. GORE: You know, in response to my question before that long laundry list, he said that they had their own family leave proposal. It was just like the proposal of your party back when Social Security was first proposed. You said: we're for it as long as it's voluntary. Same with Medicare. You said: we're for it so long as it's voluntary. Civil rights -- we're for it so long as it's voluntary. BRUNO: Senator, I'm going to have to ask you to wrap this one up. GORE: Family leave is important enough to be required. (APPLAUSE) BRUNO: Okay, thanks. Coming out of health care, again trying to avoid controversy, let's talk about the abortion debate. (Laughter) Abortion rights has been a bitter controversy in this country for almost 20 years. It's been heightened by the recent Supreme Court decisions. So I'll make it very simple in this question: Where do each of you stand on the issue? What actions will your president's administration take on the abortion question? Will it be a factor in the appointment of federal judges, especially to the Supreme Court? And I believe that Senator Gore goes first. GORE: Bill Clinton and I support the right of a woman to choose. (APPLAUSE) That doesn't mean we're pro-abortion; in fact, we believe there are way too many abortions in this country. And the way to reduce them is by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, not vetoing family planning legislation the way George Bush has consistently done. The reason we are pro-choice and in favor of a woman's right to privacy is because we believe that during the early stages of a pregnancy the government has no business coming in and ordering a woman to do what the government thinks is best. What Dan Quayle and George Bush and Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson think is the right decision in a given set of circumstances is their privilege -- but don't have the government order a woman to do what they think is the right thing to do. We ought to be able to build more common ground among those who describe themselves as pro-choice and pro-life in efforts to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. But, Dan, you can clear this up very simply by repeating after me: I support the right of a woman to choose. Can you say that? BRUNO: Vice President Quayle, your turn. QUAYLE: This issue is an issue that divides Americans deeply. I happen to be pro-life. I have been pro-life for my 16 years -- (APPLAUSE.) -- in public life. My objective and the president's objective is to try to reduce abortions in this country. We have 1.6 million abortions. We have more abortions in Washington, DC, than we do live births. Why shouldn't we have more reflection upon the issue before abor -- the decision of abortion is made. I would hope that we would agree upon that. Something like a 24-hour waiting period, parental notification. I was in Los Angeles recently and I talked to a woman who told me that she had an abortion when she was 17 years of age. And looking back on that she said it was a mistake. She said -- she said I wished at that time, that I was going through this difficult time, that I had counseling to talk about the post-abortion trauma, and talk about adoption rather than abortion. Because if I had had that discussion, I would have had the child. Let's not forget that every abortion stops a beating heart. I think we have far too many abortions in this country, in this country of ours. BRUNO: Admiral Stockdale. STOCKDALE: I believe that a woman owns her body and what she does with it is her own business, period. (APPLAUSE.) Period. BRUNO: That's it? (APPLAUSE.) STOCKDALE: I don't -- I, too, abhor abortions, but I don't think they should be made illegal, and I don't -- and I don't think it's a political issue. I think it's a privacy issue. (APPLAUSE.) BRUNO: You caught me by surprise. Let's go ahead with the discussion of this issue. Senator Gore. GORE: Well, you notice in his response, that Dan did not say I support the right of a woman to choose. That is because he and George Bush have turned over their party to Pat Buchanan and Phyllis Schlafly, who have ordered them to endorse a platform which makes all abortions illegal under any circumstances, regardless of what has led to that decision by a woman. Even in cases of rape and incest, their platform requires that a woman be penalized, that she not be allowed to make a choice, if she believes, in consultation with her family, her doctor, and others, whoever she chooses, that she wants to have an abortion after rape, or incest. They make it completely -- QUAYLE: Senator, do you support a 24-hour waiting period? GORE: -- illegal under any of those circumstances. Now they want to waffle around -- QUAYLE: Do you support a 24-hour waiting period? GORE: Let me finish this, briefly. Now -- now you want to waffle around on it and give the impression that maybe you don't really mean what you say. But again, you can clear it up by simply repeating I support the right of a woman to choose. Say it. BRUNO: Let him say it himself. Let him say his own words. Go ahead, Mr Vice President. QUAYLE: Thank you. Talk about waffling around. This issue is a very important issue. It has been debated throughout your public life and throughout my public life, and one thing that I don't think that it is wise to do, and that is to change your position. At one time, and most of the time in the House of Representatives, you had a pro-life position. GORE: That's simply not true. QUAYLE: In 1987, you wrote a letter, and we'll pass this out to the media -- GORE: That is simply not true. QUAYLE: You wrote a letter saying that you oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. Bill Clinton has the same type of a record. GORE: In some circumstances. QUAYLE: You're going to qualify it now. GORE: And I still do. QUAYLE: And Bill Clinton, when he was governor of Arkansas, also worked with the Right to Life people and supported Right to Life positions and now he has changed. Talk about waffling around. This is the typical type of Clinton response. Even on the issue like abortion. He's on both sides of the issue. Take the NAFTA agreement -- GORE: Well, wait -- BRUNO: Let's stick with the question, Mr Vice President. QUAYLE: How long did he have -- GORE: I know you want to change the subject, Dan, but let's stay on this one for a while. QUAYLE: How long did he have to wait -- or how quickly did he change his position on education? He changes his position all the time. GORE: Let's stay with this issue for a while. QUAYLE: Bill Clinton -- Bill Clinton has trouble telling the truth. 3 words he fears most in the English language. BRUNO: Does anybody have any view about the appointment of judges on this? QUAYLE: Tell the truth. GORE: Yeah, I want to talk about this, because the question was not about free trade or education. The question -- QUAYLE: Talk about waffling. You're the one who brought up the -- GORE: Now, I let you talk. QUAYLE: -- issue of waffling. He's waffled on the abortion issue. GORE: I let you talk. Let me talk now. It's going to be a long evening if you're like this, now. QUAYLE: Oh, no, it's not -- GORE: Don't change the subject -- BRUNO: Let's get on with it. Gentlemen, let's get on with it. GORE: Don't change the subject -- QUAYLE: Well, answer my questions, then. GORE: What you have done -- QUAYLE: Answer my questions. On the 24 hour waiting period -- do you support that? GORE: I have had the same position -- QUAYLE: Do you support that? GORE: I have had the same position on abortion in favor of a woman's right to choose. Do you support a woman's right to choose -- QUAYLE: Do you support a 24 hour waiting period to have -- GORE: You're still avoiding -- QUAYLE: How about avoiding the question? GORE: -- the question. Now, wait a minute. Let me tell you why this is so important. There are millions of women in this country who passionately believe in the right of a woman to privacy. And they want to stack the Supreme Court with justices who will take away the right to privacy. Make no mistake about it. That is their agenda -- (APPLAUSE) And if you support them, don't be surprised if that is exactly what they want to do and that is why Dan Quayle refuses to say this evening that he supports the right of a woman to choose. I agree with Admiral Stockdale and the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans in this country. You know, one of the reasons so many Republicans are supporting the Clinton- Gore ticket is because they've turned over the party to this right wing extremist group which takes positions on issues like abortion that don't even allow exceptions for rape and incest. BRUNO: Senator -- GORE: Again, can't you just say you support the right of a woman to choose? BRUNO: Could we give Admiral Stockdale a chance to jump in here if he wants to, if he dares to. STOCKDALE: I would like to get in -- I feel like I'm an observer at a pingpong game, where they're talking about well, you know, they're expert professional politicians that massage these intricate plots and know every nuance to 'em. And meantime, we're facing a desperate situation in our economy. I've seen the cost of living double in my lifetime. A new granddaughter was born in my family -- my granddaughter- -3 weeks ago. And according to the statistics that we have -- that is, the Perot group -- the chances of her seeing a doubling of the standard of living are nil. In fact, her children will be dead before another -- this standard of living is doubled. So what the heck! Let's get on with talking about something substantive. (APPLAUSE) BRUNO: All right. Mr Vice President, you'll have a chance to -- (APPLAUSE) You'll have a chance in the closing statements. QUAYLE: We need to get on -- BRUNO: No, let's move on to another topic. QUAYLE: Just 15 seconds to respond. GORE: Well, can I have 15 seconds also? BRUNO: No, let's move on, gentlemen. QUAYLE: I'll tell you what. If -- BRUNO: Let's not -- we're not horse trading. We're having a debate. Let's go on. Let's talk about the cities. Because that's where a majority of Americans live, in urban areas, and they're facing a financial and social crisis. They've lost sources of tax revenue. The aid that once came from the federal and state governments has been drastically cut. There's an epidemic of drugs, crime and violence. Their streets, the schools are like war zones. It's becoming increasingly difficult to pay for public education, for transportation, for police and fire protection, the basic services that local government must provide. Now, everybody says, talks about enterprise zones, that may be part of the solution, but what else are your administrations really going to be willing to do to help the cities? Vice President Quayle, it's your turn to go first. QUAYLE: Well, Hal, enterprise zones are important and it's an idea that the president has been pushing, and there's been very strong reluctance on, with the Democratic Congress. We'll continue to push it. We also want, Hal, to have home ownership. I was at a housing sub -- a housing project in San Francisco several months ago and met with people that were trying to reclaim their neighborhood. They wanted home ownership. They didn't want handouts. And I was with the Democrat mayor of San Francisco who was there supporting our idea. But when you look at the cities and you see the problems we have with crime, drugs, lack of jobs, I also want to point out one of the fundamental problems that we have in American cities and throughout America today, and that is the breakdown of the American family. I know some people laugh about it when I talk about the breakdown of the family, but it's true. 6ty % of the kids that are born in our major cities today are born out of wedlock. We have too many divorces. We have too many fathers that aren't assuming their responsibility. The breakdown of the family is a contributing factor to the problems that we have in urban America. BRUNO: Admiral Stockdale. STOCKDALE: I think enterprise zones are good, but I think the problem is deeper than that. I think we are -- you know, when I was -- I ran a civilization for several years, a civilization of 3 to 4 hundred wonderful men. We had our own laws. We had our own, practically our own constitution. And I put up -- I was the -- I was the sovereign for a good bit of that. And I tried to analyze human predicaments in that microcosm of life in the -- in the world. And I found out that when I really got down to putting out do's and don'ts, and lots of these included take torture for this and that, and this and that, and never take any amnesty, for reasons they all understood and went along with. But one of the -- we had an acronym, BACKUS, and each one of those B-a-c-k was something for which you -- you had to make them hurt you before you did it. Bowing in public, making, making -- getting on the radio and so forth. But at the end it was US, BACKUS. You got the double meaning there. But the US could be called the US, but it was Unity Over Self, Loners Make Out. Somehow we're going to have to get some love in this country between races, and between rich and poor. You have got to have leaders -- and they're out there -- who can do this with their bare hands, with -- working with, with people on the scene. BRUNO: Senator Gore, please. GORE: George Bush's urban policy has been a tale of 2 cities: the best of times for the very wealthy; the worst of times for everyone else. We have seen a decline in urban America under the Bush-Quayle administration. Bill Clinton and I want to change that, by creating good jobs, investing in infrastructure, new programs in job training and apprenticeship, welfare reform -- to say to a mother with young children that if she gets a good job, her children are not going to lose their Medicaid benefits; incentives for investment in the inner city area, and, yes, enterprise zones. Vice President Quayle said they're important, but George Bush eliminated them from his urban plan, and then -- QUAYLE: Well, that's not true. GORE: And then, when they were included in a plan that the Congress passed, -- QUAYLE: We have been for enterprise zones -- GORE: -- George Bush vetoed the enterprise zone law, the law that included them, for one reason: because that same bill raised taxes on those making more than $200,000 a year. Let's face up to it, Dan: your top priority really, isn't it, to make sure that the very wealthy don't have to pay any more taxes. We want to cut taxes on middle-income families and raise them on those making more than $200,000 a year. QUAYLE: What plan is that? GORE: And if we can take our approach, the cities will be much better off. BRUNO: Let's start the discussion period right here. Go ahead. QUAYLE: What plan is that that's just going to raise taxes on those making over $200,000 a year? You may call that your plan, but everyone knows that you simply can't get $150 billion in new taxes by raising the marginal tax rate to a top rate of 36 % and only tax those making $200,000 a year. It's absolutely ridiculous. The top 2 % which you refer to, that gets you down to $64,000; then you have about a $40-billion shortfall -- that gets you down to $36,000 a year. Everybody making more than $36,000 a year will have their taxes increased if Bill Clinton is president of the US. And I don't know how you're going to go to urban America and say that raising taxes is good for you. I don't know how you're going to go to urban America and say, well, the best thing that we can offer is simply to raise taxes again. This is nothing more than a tax-and-spend platform. We've seen it before. It doesn't work. Let me tell you about a story. GORE: Can I respond to some of that? QUAYLE: I've got a very good example -- GORE: Can I respond to some of that? QUAYLE: -- when we talk about families here, because I was meeting with some former gang members in Phoenix and Los Angeles and Albuquerque, New Mexico. And when I talked to those former gang members, here's what they told why they joined the gang. They said, well, joining a gang is like joining a family. I said, joining a family? Yes, because the gang offered support, it offered leadership, it offered comfort, it was a way to get ahead. Where have we come if joining a gang is like being a member of the family? BRUNO: Senator Gore, you wanted to respond? QUAYLE: And that's why I think that families have to be strengthened, and you don't strengthen the American family by raising taxes. GORE: I do want to respond to that. BRUNO: Go ahead, Senator, Admiral. GORE: George Bush and Dan Quayle want to protect the very wealthy. That is the group that has gotten all of the tax cuts under the Bush-Quayle administration. Nobody here who is middle income has gotten a tax cut because middle-income families have had tax increases under Bush and Quayle in order to finance the cuts for the very wealthy. That's what trickle-down economics is all about. And they want to continue it. We're proposing to also require foreign corporations to pay the same taxes that American corporations do when they do business here in the US of America. George Bush has not been willing to enforce the laws and collect those taxes. We want to close that loophole and raise more money in that way. BRUNO: Senator, can we stick to the cities, sir? GORE: Excuse me? BRUNO: Stick to the cities. GORE: All right. Well, he, he talked about ways to raise money to help the cities. What we're proposing is to invest in the infrastructure in cities and have targeted tax incentives for investment right in inner city areas. The enterprise zones represent a part of our proposal also, and strengthening the family through welfare reform. And you know the Bush administration has cut out -- has vetoed family leave, they have cut childhood immunization and college aid. If you don't support parents and you don't support children, how -- how can you say you support families? QUAYLE: How about supporting parents and the right to choose where their kids go to school, Al? (APPLAUSE.) Do you support that? GORE: We -- QUAYLE: Let the parents -- let the parents -- GORE: Do you want me to answer? QUAYLE: -- public or private schools? GORE: Want me to answer? BRUNO: Go ahead. GORE: We support the public school choice to go to any public school of your choice. What we don't support -- and listen to what they're proposing -- to take US taxpayer dollars and subsidize private schools. Now I'm all for private schools, but to use taxpayer dollars, when the people who get these little vouchers often won't be able to afford the private school anyway, and the private school is not -- QUAYLE: Al, I think, I think it's important -- GORE: -- under any obligation to admit them, that is a ripoff of the US taxpayer. QUAYLE: That's important. This is a very- -this is a very important issue. Choice in education is a very important issue. BRUNO: Let him respond. QUAYLE: And he said that he was not for choosing -- giving the parents the right to choose to send their children to public schools. But it's okay for the wealthy to choose to send their kids to private schools, but it's not okay for the middle class and the working poor to choose where they want to send their kids to school. I think that it's time that all parents in America have a right to choose where they send their kids to school to get an education. (APPLAUSE.) BRUNO: Admiral Stockdale, would you like to have the last word in this period? STOCKDALE: I -- I come down on the side of freedom of school choice. The -- and there's a lot of misunderstandings that I've heard here tonight, that I may have the answer to. The -- starting at, you know, for the last, almost a decade, we've worried about our schools officially through Washington, and the president had a meeting of all the governors, and then they tried the conventional fixes for schools, that is, to increase the certification of -- requirements for the teachers, to lengthen the school day, to lengthen the school year and nothing -- this is a very brief overview of the thing -- but nothing happened. And it's time to change the school's structure. In schools, bureaucracy is bad and autonomy is good. The only good schools -- (APPLAUSE.) -- we have are those run by talented principals and devoted teachers, and they're running their own show. How many times have I thrived? You know, the best thing I had when I ran that civilization, it succeeded, and it's a landmark. The best thing I had going for me was I had no contact with Washington for all those years. (APPLAUSE.) GORE: Could I respond? BRUNO: We have to go on. What I'm about to say doesn't apply to the debate tonight; it applies to the campaign that's been going on outside this auditorium. With 3 weeks to go, this campaign has at times been very ugly, with the tone being set by personal negative attacks. As candidates, how does it look from your viewpoint? And are these tactics really necessary? Admiral Stockdale -- it's your turn to go first. STOCKDALE: You know, I didn't have my hearing aid turned on. Tell me again. (Laughter) BRUNO: I'm sorry, sir. I was saying that at times this campaign has been very ugly with personal negative attacks. As a candidate, how does it look from where you are and are these tactics really necessary? STOCKDALE: Nasty attacks -- well, I think there is a case to be made for putting emphasis on character over these issues that we've been batting back and forth and have a life of their own. Sure, you have to know where you're going with your government, but character is the big variable in the success. Character of the leads is the big variable in the success -- long term success -- of an administration. I went to a friend of mine in New York some years ago and he was a president of a major TV network and he said, you know, I think we have messed up this whole -- this election process -- it was an election year -- by stressing that -- putting out the dogma that issues are the thing to talk about, not character. He said, I felt so strongly about this, I went back and read the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Read those debates. How do they come down? Douglas is all character. He knows all of the little stinky numbers these guys do. Abraham Lincoln had character. Thank God we got the right president in the Civil War. But that is a question that is a valid one, and you know, I would like to brag about the character of my boss. BRUNO: Okay, Senator Gore. GORE: This election is about the future of our country, not about personal attacks against one candidate or another. Our nation is in trouble and it is appalling to me that with 10 million Americans out work, with the rest working harder for less money than they did 4 years ago, with the loss of 1.4 million manufacturing jobs in our nation, with the health care crisis, a crisis of crime and drugs and AIDS, substandard education, that George Bush would constantly try to level personal attacks at his opponent. Now, this, of course, just reached a new low last week when he resorted to a classic McCarthyite technique of trying to smear Bill Clinton over a trip that he took as a student along with lots of other Rhodes Scholars who were invited to go to Russia. It's a classic McCarthyite smear technique. I think the president of the US ought to apologize. I think that he insulted the intelligence of the American people and I'm awful proud that the American people rejected that tactic so overwhelmingly that he decided he had made a mistake. Do you think it was a mistake, too, Dan? BRUNO: Okay. Vice President Quayle. QUAYLE: Let me answer the question. BRUNO: Go ahead. QUAYLE: Hal, you said -- and I wrote it down here -- "personal negative attacks." (Laughs) Has anyone been reading my press clippings for the last 4 years? (APPLAUSE) But I happen to -- I agree with one thing on -- with Senator Gore, and that is that we ought to look to the future, and the future is, who's going to be the next president of the US. And is it a negative attack and a personal attack to point out that Bill Clinton has trouble telling the truth? He said that he didn't even demonstrate -- he told the people in Arkansas in 1978. Then we find out he organized demonstrations. You know, I don't care whether he demonstrated or didn't demonstrate. The fact -- the question is, tell the truth. Just tell us the truth. Today, Bill Clinton -- excuse me -- yesterday in Philadelphia on a radio show, yesterday on a radio show, he attacked -- Admiral, he attacks Ross Perot saying the media is giving Ross Perot a free ride. The press asked him when the klieg lights are on, said what do you mean by Ross Perot getting a free ride? He says I didn't say that at all. I mean, you can't have it both ways. No, I don't think that is a personal attack. What I find troubling with Bill Clinton is he can't tell the truth. You cannot lead this great country of ours by misleading the people. (APPLAUSE) BRUNO: All right, gentlemen, the control room advises me that in order to have time for your closing statements, which we certainly want, there simply is not going to be time for a discussion period on this particular topic. So let's go to the closing statements. You have 2 minutes each. And we'll start with Admiral Stockdale. STOCKDALE: I think the best justification for getting Ross Perot in the race again to say is that we're seeing this kind of chit-chat back and forth about issues that don't concentrate on where our grandchildren -- the living standards of our children and grandchildren. He is, as I have read in more than one article, a revolutionary; he's got plans out there that are going to double the speed at which this budget problem is being cared for. It was asked how, if we would squeeze down so fast that we would strangle the economy in the process. That is an art, to follow all those variables and know when to let up and to nurse this economy back together with pulls and pushes. And there's no better man in the world to do that than that old artist, Ross Perot. And so I think that my closing statement is that I think I'm in a room with people that aren't the life of reality. The US is in deep trouble. We've got to have somebody that can get up there and bring out the firehoses and get it stopped, and that's what we're about in the Perot campaign. BRUNO: Thank you. (APPLAUSE.) Senator Gore, your closing statement, sir. GORE: Three weeks from today, our nation will make a fateful decision. We can continue traveling the road we have been on, which has led to higher unemployment and worse economic times, or we can reach out for change. If we choose change, it will require us to reach down inside ourselves to find the courage to take a new direction. Sometimes it seems deceptively easy to continue with old habits even when they're no longer good for us. Trickle-down economics simply does not work. We have had an increase in all of the things that should be decreasing. Everything that should have been increasing has been going down. We have got to change direction. Bill Clinton offers a new approach. He has been named by the other 49 governors, Republicans and Democrats alike, as the best and most effective governor in the entire US of America. He's moved 17,000 people off the welfare rolls and on to payrolls. He has introduced innovations in health care and education, and again, he has led the nation for the last 2 years in a row in the creation of jobs in the private sector. Isn't it time for a new approach, a new generation of ideas and leadership, to put our nation's people first and to get our economy moving again? We simply cannot stand to continue with this failed approach that is no good for us. Ultimately, it is a choice between hope and fear, a choice between the future and the past. It is time to reach out for a better nation. We are bigger than George Bush has told us we are, as a nation, and we have a much brighter future. Give us a chance. With your help, we'll change this country and we can't wait to get started. (APPLAUSE.) BRUNO: Vice President Quayle. QUAYLE: Thank you, Hal. I'd like to use this closing statement to talk to you about a few people that I have met in these last 4 years. I think of a woman in Chicago when I was talking to parents about education where she stood up and said I'm sick and tired of these schools in this city being nothing but a factory for failure. And that's why we support choice in education. I was in Beaumont, Texas, and met with small business people, and they wanted to reform the civil justice system because they think our legal system costs too much and there's too much of a delay in getting an answer. I was in Middletown, Ohio, talking to a welfare woman, where she said I want to go back to work and I had a job offered to me but I'm not going to take it because I have 2 children at home and the job that is offered to me doesn't have health insurance. Under President Bush's health care reform package that woman won't have to make a choice about going back to work or health care for her children, because she'll have both. I was in Vilnius, Lithuania, Independence Square, speaking to 10,000 people in the middle of winter. Hundreds of people came up to me and said: God bless America. Yes, in the next 4 years, as I said, somewhere, some time, there's going to be a crisis, and you need to have a president that is qualified, has the experience, and has been tested. Not one time during this evening, during 90 minutes, did Al Gore tell us why Bill Clinton is qualified to be president. He never answered my charges that Bill Clinton has trouble telling the truth. The choice is yours. The American people should demand that their president tell the truth. Do you really believe -- do you really believe Bill Clinton will tell the truth? And do you, do you trust Bill Clinton to be your president? (APPLAUSE) BRUNO: That concludes this vice presidential debate. I'd like to thank Vice President Quayle, Senator Gore, Admiral Stockdale for being participants. The next presidential debate is scheduled for this Thursday at 9:00 PM Eastern Time at the University of Richmond in Richmond, Virginia. To all of our viewers and listeners, thank you and good night. (APPLAUSE) Presidential Candidate Debates, Vice Presidential Debate in Atlanta, Georgia Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/217188